Just shy of 12 months inside... And how long under correctional supervision? That was still his sentence being served...
Some might also argue that the stringent bail conditions (electronic tag etc) might also be considered against the final sentence then factor in the significant and compelling factors...
Basically the murderer has been under 'supervision' for more than twelve months for his penal crime. Twelve months. That is all that counts The rest of the time he's been leaving his shopping in a store after customers complained about his presence, apparently (aaawww....) swimming in Uncle Arnies pool and living like a king in a mansion and getting into drunken nightclub fights. 15 years minus one is where this starts.
The daft bat stated out loud that he was an unreliable witness - she then went on to rely on the bits he said that would get him off!
And HE openly said he would "try" to tell the truth - you couldn't make this stuff up!
That's the crux of it. It was like she had decided with her heart ( or other persuasion) but summing up with any reasoning to reach that conclusion was beyond her.
Oh dear the imagination of these Pistorians who inhabit La La land knows no bounds.
There is an Allison Pennell making innuendoes about Justice Leach ‘knowing’ Gerrie Nel in a former life and suggesting he also ‘knew’ Reeva as they both come from Port Elizabeth, others are suggesting that Gerrie Nel also ‘knew’ Reeva.
Could it be that these poor deluded dears are, in their desperation, working up to constructing a fantasy ménage a trois with Leach, Steenkamp and Nel?
It’s possible as it would require no more than the level of imagination that Pistorius used to come up with his intruder fantasy
Interesting point raised by SA legal expert Zehir Omar regarding Masipa awarding costs against the state. It would seem that as she specifically ‘invited’ applications for leave to appeal immediately after sentencing then she was in no position to then award costs against either party who accepted her invitation.
Yet another misdirection born of her ignorance for the SCA to consider perhaps
Interesting point raised by SA legal expert Zehir Omar regarding Masipa awarding costs against the state. It would seem that as she specifically ‘invited’ applications for leave to appeal immediately after sentencing then she was in no position to then award costs against either party who accepted her invitation.
Yet another misdirection born of her ignorance for the SCA to consider perhaps
I did like him comparing the Pistorius intruder story to the sort of fantasy that can be read in a Mills and Boon novel. May explain why Pistorius supporters are mainly female and probably of the ilk who have a penchant for such reading material.
Maybe Masipa reads Mills and Boon and could explain why she obviously has the mind set for the odd episode of make-believe in court
I'm beginning to think the family of Reva will never see justice for their daughter's senseless murder at the hands of a vile pathetic little coward who tired of using his fists to hurt he used a gun instead, I'd throw scumbag Oscar into general population and let con justice do it's work.
As for those deluded sick females who hang on every word of the murderer and defend him on the net well they need serious professional help.
Basically the murderer has been under 'supervision' for more than twelve months for his penal crime. Twelve months. That is all that counts The rest of the time he's been leaving his shopping in a store after customers complained about his presence, apparently (aaawww....) swimming in Uncle Arnies pool and living like a king in a mansion and getting into drunken nightclub fights. 15 years minus one is where this starts.
Yes, he has been under some form of supervision as part of his sentence for more than twelve months (whether that is prison or correctional supervision), so more than twelve months has to be taken into account.
Since the verdict changed, (before he returned to prison), his bail conditions were -rightly, given the seriousness of the crime- very strict.
When -either under correctional supervision or on bail since the conviction changed to murder- do you think there has been a drunken nightclub fight?
Are you saying that there is no place for correctional supervision in its current format, as there can be no way of guaranteeing an equal experience in terms of available material comfort? Or that an inmate's opportunity to convert part of a sentence to CS should be means-tested?
The punishment aspect of correctional supervision, as I understand it, is a step on from incarceration and enforced basic living standards, to be more about placing a controlled limit on the offender's liberty, (curfews, compulsory community service, restrictions on movements etc).
What about at the moment though? It's not like Masipa said six years minus the time already served. Shouldn't it automatically be added to the six years when discussing his current sentence? Even if people find a total sentence of almost eight years too low, it is at least more honest to recognise time already served as part of a sentence prior to the verdict change, in addition to the one he is now serving, and that eight years is a more realistic summary of his overall sentence (so far).
BIB - Just another of the vagaries which Masipa has left us with. I don't think she said anything one way or the other about time already served. Surely it would have been more sensible to give a sentence appropriate to murder and then clarify what time served is to be deducted?
It wouldn't surprise me that, if the six years stands, we would be hearing from Pistorius' lawyers in a year or two about how he should be elegible for parole given time already served.
But as you say, even if it is viewed as an eight year sentence most people would see that as a very lenient sentence for murder.
I'm beginning to think the family of Reva will never see justice for their daughter's senseless murder at the hands of a vile pathetic little coward who tired of using his fists to hurt he used a gun instead, I'd throw scumbag Oscar into general population and let con justice do it's work.
As for those deluded sick females who hang on every word of the murderer and defend him on the net well they need serious professional help.
BIB - Just another of the vagaries which Masipa has left us with. I don't think she said anything one way or the other about time already served. Surely it would have been more sensible to give a sentence appropriate to murder and then clarify what time served is to be deducted?
It wouldn't surprise me that, if the six years stands, we would be hearing from Pistorius' lawyers in a year or two about how he should be elegible for parole given time already served.
But as you say, even if it is viewed as an eight year sentence most people would see that as a very lenient sentence for murder.
I agree that the judge could have made it clearer. I assumed (but perhaps wrongly), that because she didn't say 'six years less time already served', that it meant that time served was taken into account in coming to the six year figure. ie that he needed to serve a further six years on top of time already served.
I accept that for some people even a total sentence of around 8 years feels too low, but I wonder how many of those people believe he chose to kill Reeva following an argument and made up the intruder version to cover his actions? In the scenario now accepted by the courts, is 8 years actually so shocking?
I agree that the judge could have made it clearer. I assumed (but perhaps wrongly), that because she didn't say 'six years less time already served', that it meant that time served was taken into account in coming to the six year figure. ie that he needed to serve a further six years on top of time already served.
I accept that for some people even a total sentence of around 8 years feels too low, but I wonder how many of those people believe he chose to kill Reeva following an argument and made up the intruder version to cover his actions? In the scenario now accepted by the courts, is 8 years actually so shocking?
BIB - I would say yes. Especially considering an 8 year sentence in SA could mean release from prison on parole after 4 years (or if 6 years, then parole after 3). The 'scenario now accepted by the courts', as you put it, is that his actions amount to murder.
I don't know where you're from but in the UK there is a mandatory life sentence for murder. Of course not many will serve life; the judge will set a minimum tariff to be served before parole can be considered. This will vary depending on the circumstances of the crime and any mitigating factors. The average time served for murder (actually in prison) is 17 years, and 10 years would be considered very low.
I think in recent years the shortest time served by anyone convicted of murder was 3 years. That was someone who had in fact comitted what they considered a mercy killing of someone terminally ill. That was highly unusual and you can see why it was considered to be 'exceptional mitigating circumstances'. Compare that to Pistorius who intentionally shot a defenceless person.
Yes, he has been under some form of supervision as part of his sentence for more than twelve months (whether that is prison or correctional supervision), so more than twelve months has to be taken into account.
Since the verdict changed, (before he returned to prison), his bail conditions were -rightly, given the seriousness of the crime- very strict.
When -either under correctional supervision or on bail since the conviction changed to murder- do you think there has been a drunken nightclub fight?
Are you saying that there is no place for correctional supervision in its current format, as there can be no way of guaranteeing an equal experience in terms of available material comfort? Or that an inmate's opportunity to convert part of a sentence to CS should be means-tested?
The punishment aspect of correctional supervision, as I understand it, is a step on from incarceration and enforced basic living standards, to be more about placing a controlled limit on the offender's liberty, (curfews, compulsory community service, restrictions on movements etc).
op has been convicted of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp, and yet you pistorians are saying it's fine for him to be swanning around town and the mansion. One year served in jail. More Years to come for taking an innocent life in anger.
I don't know where you're from but in the UK there is a mandatory life sentence for murder. Of course not many will serve life; the judge will set a minimum tariff to be served before parole can be considered. This will vary depending on the circumstances of the crime and any mitigating factors. The average time served for murder (actually in prison) is 17 years, and 10 years would be considered very low
Added to which, in England & Wales (and, AFAIK other parts of the UK too) a person released on parole from a life sentence is on licence for LIFE which means that they can be recalled to Prison at any times when there are issues with their behaviour.
They do not have to be convicted of another offence to be recalled or even suspected of committing a criminal offence at all. So, for example, having an argument in a night club with strangers whilst drunk would be more than enough to put them back behind bars again. (And trust me, that example is NO exaggeration so OP should think on ;-))
op has been convicted of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp, and yet you pistorians are saying it's fine for him to be swanning around town and the mansion. One year served in jail. More Years to come for taking an innocent life in anger.
I don't identify with this repeated label 'pistorian' at all. I am just someone who happens to think he may well have been telling the truth about believing there was an intruder. Perhaps that is your definition of Pistorian though?
And no- the one year in prison followed by correctional supervision was part of his earlier CH conviction. He would not only have served one year with a murder conviction.
As to whether he was 'swanning' anywhere whilst under correctional supervision or on bail awaiting sentencing for DE, it's down to individual interpretations, I think . Completing community service, or doing some shopping isn't swanning around, in my view. Perhaps for others it is. But that is to miss the point (and the key difference) of correctional supervision as opposed to incarceration. (as explored in my earlier post today) Should there have been additional conditions built into his correctional supervision and bail conditions, such as 'you cannot use your uncle's pool/gym, you cannot access satellite/cable TV channels/ you can only go into your uncle's garden for one hour each day?
People of different socio-economic backgrounds get sent to prison. Many of these are released under correctional supervision. Unless you scrap CS completely, or until there is some middle-way series of supervised CS hostels set up, then these socio-economic differences are going to exist under CS. Are you suggesting that Pistorius's period of CS would have been accepted by more people, had he been poor?
If the SCA do decide to hear the appeal and do decide to change the sentence, it won't be for taking an innocent life In anger.
I don't identify with this repeated label 'pistorian' at all. I am just someone who happens to think he may well have been telling the truth about believing there was an intruder. Perhaps that is your definition of Pistorian though?
And no- the one year in prison followed by correctional supervision was part of his earlier CH conviction. He would not only have served one year with a murder conviction.
As to whether he was 'swanning' anywhere whilst under correctional supervision or on bail awaiting sentencing for DE, it's down to individual interpretations, I think . Completing community service, or doing some shopping isn't swanning around, in my view. Perhaps for others it is. But that is to miss the point (and the key difference) of correctional supervision as opposed to incarceration. (as explored in my earlier post today) Should there have been additional conditions built into his correctional supervision and bail conditions, such as 'you cannot use your uncle's pool/gym, you cannot access satellite/cable TV channels/ you can only go into your uncle's garden for one hour each day?
People of different socio-economic backgrounds get sent to prison. Many of these are released under correctional supervision. Unless you scrap CS completely, or until there is some middle-way series of supervised CS hostels set up, then these socio-economic differences are going to exist under CS. Are you suggesting that Pistorius's period of CS would have been accepted by more people, had he been poor?
If the SCA do decide to hear the appeal and do decide to change the sentence, it won't be for taking an innocent life In anger.
Musing has an excellent response above to your earlier post.
If it is increased it will reflect a much more sensible sentence for someone who deliberately murderered someone by shooting them four times whilst they were cornered like a frightened animal.
For some it seems to be extremely important that Reeva is in some way 'not connected' to this murder, unfortunately as the very graphic photos that her parents agreed to publish, show the results of his actions.
So really, its all semantics when all is said and done........she was murdered, he is a murderer.....and it looks hopeful that he will get a more appropriate sentence at last.
I bet Roux isn't looking forward to this one though.
If the SCA do decide to hear the appeal and do decide to change the sentence, it won't be for taking an innocent life In anger.
I'm not sure how you can say that. That he took an innocent life is a fact. Whether it was in anger or not is debatable. The SCA said he gave no reasonable explanation for shooting.
I'm not sure how you can say that. That he took an innocent life is a fact. Whether it was in anger or not is debatable. The SCA said he gave no reasonable explanation for shooting.
BIB Exactly. It's the 'in anger' bit I was questioning.
Probably fear of litigation prevents it appearing closer to home. It is a sign of increasing desperation from those too spineless to reveal their identity preferring to be known only as ‘sources in the Pistorius legal team and among his friends’
Unfortunately I think in their futile efforts to assist Pistorius they may have overlooked the possible consequences of calling into doubt the propriety of a Justice of the SCA.
I don't identify with this repeated label 'pistorian' at all. I am just someone who happens to think he may well have been telling the truth about believing there was an intruder. Perhaps that is your definition of Pistorian though?
You must be a Mills and Boon reader to be sucked into his fantasy world
I did not suggest Pistorius ‘made a mistake’ I was just pointing out the futility, indeed stupidity, of his supporters still clinging on to that notion
Also I did not say anything to give the impression that he had knowingly sought out and murdered Reeva after some row. However, this may well have been the case as most believe, but was not a finding by Masipa. That said as she has been found ‘wanting’ in several areas of her judgemental ability then perhaps with another more able judge things might well have been different.
So I was pointing out that Pistorius has been found by the SCA to be guilty of murder in that he did murder Reeva Steenkamp. That is without question.
The fact that OP thought there was an intruder which you have correctly said cannot be changed is the mistake and that cannot be changed.
I think it is important to respect and accept the legal outcome even if one does not agree with it.
Oh well, then you must enjoy your fiction served up by an acknowledged fabricator with more reason than most convicted murders to lie.
I suppose it is inevitable he will fool a few people but thankfully the vast majority can apply simple common sense to see straight through his obvious charade.
Comments
Basically the murderer has been under 'supervision' for more than twelve months for his penal crime. Twelve months. That is all that counts The rest of the time he's been leaving his shopping in a store after customers complained about his presence, apparently (aaawww....) swimming in Uncle Arnies pool and living like a king in a mansion and getting into drunken nightclub fights. 15 years minus one is where this starts.
That's the crux of it. It was like she had decided with her heart ( or other persuasion) but summing up with any reasoning to reach that conclusion was beyond her.
There is an Allison Pennell making innuendoes about Justice Leach ‘knowing’ Gerrie Nel in a former life and suggesting he also ‘knew’ Reeva as they both come from Port Elizabeth, others are suggesting that Gerrie Nel also ‘knew’ Reeva.
Could it be that these poor deluded dears are, in their desperation, working up to constructing a fantasy ménage a trois with Leach, Steenkamp and Nel?
It’s possible as it would require no more than the level of imagination that Pistorius used to come up with his intruder fantasy
Yet another misdirection born of her ignorance for the SCA to consider perhaps
http://www.thenewage.co.za/law-expert-zehir-omar-on-state-petition-to-challenge-oscar-pistoriuss-jail-term-at-sca/
If there was a like button here ..I'd be hitting it!
Great link.
I did like him comparing the Pistorius intruder story to the sort of fantasy that can be read in a Mills and Boon novel. May explain why Pistorius supporters are mainly female and probably of the ilk who have a penchant for such reading material.
Maybe Masipa reads Mills and Boon and could explain why she obviously has the mind set for the odd episode of make-believe in court
As for those deluded sick females who hang on every word of the murderer and defend him on the net well they need serious professional help.
Yes, he has been under some form of supervision as part of his sentence for more than twelve months (whether that is prison or correctional supervision), so more than twelve months has to be taken into account.
Since the verdict changed, (before he returned to prison), his bail conditions were -rightly, given the seriousness of the crime- very strict.
When -either under correctional supervision or on bail since the conviction changed to murder- do you think there has been a drunken nightclub fight?
Are you saying that there is no place for correctional supervision in its current format, as there can be no way of guaranteeing an equal experience in terms of available material comfort? Or that an inmate's opportunity to convert part of a sentence to CS should be means-tested?
The punishment aspect of correctional supervision, as I understand it, is a step on from incarceration and enforced basic living standards, to be more about placing a controlled limit on the offender's liberty, (curfews, compulsory community service, restrictions on movements etc).
BIB - Just another of the vagaries which Masipa has left us with. I don't think she said anything one way or the other about time already served. Surely it would have been more sensible to give a sentence appropriate to murder and then clarify what time served is to be deducted?
It wouldn't surprise me that, if the six years stands, we would be hearing from Pistorius' lawyers in a year or two about how he should be elegible for parole given time already served.
But as you say, even if it is viewed as an eight year sentence most people would see that as a very lenient sentence for murder.
I didn't know he had beat her up as well.
I agree that the judge could have made it clearer. I assumed (but perhaps wrongly), that because she didn't say 'six years less time already served', that it meant that time served was taken into account in coming to the six year figure. ie that he needed to serve a further six years on top of time already served.
I accept that for some people even a total sentence of around 8 years feels too low, but I wonder how many of those people believe he chose to kill Reeva following an argument and made up the intruder version to cover his actions? In the scenario now accepted by the courts, is 8 years actually so shocking?
BIB - I would say yes. Especially considering an 8 year sentence in SA could mean release from prison on parole after 4 years (or if 6 years, then parole after 3). The 'scenario now accepted by the courts', as you put it, is that his actions amount to murder.
I don't know where you're from but in the UK there is a mandatory life sentence for murder. Of course not many will serve life; the judge will set a minimum tariff to be served before parole can be considered. This will vary depending on the circumstances of the crime and any mitigating factors. The average time served for murder (actually in prison) is 17 years, and 10 years would be considered very low.
I think in recent years the shortest time served by anyone convicted of murder was 3 years. That was someone who had in fact comitted what they considered a mercy killing of someone terminally ill. That was highly unusual and you can see why it was considered to be 'exceptional mitigating circumstances'. Compare that to Pistorius who intentionally shot a defenceless person.
op has been convicted of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp, and yet you pistorians are saying it's fine for him to be swanning around town and the mansion. One year served in jail. More Years to come for taking an innocent life in anger.
They do not have to be convicted of another offence to be recalled or even suspected of committing a criminal offence at all. So, for example, having an argument in a night club with strangers whilst drunk would be more than enough to put them back behind bars again. (And trust me, that example is NO exaggeration so OP should think on ;-))
I don't identify with this repeated label 'pistorian' at all. I am just someone who happens to think he may well have been telling the truth about believing there was an intruder. Perhaps that is your definition of Pistorian though?
And no- the one year in prison followed by correctional supervision was part of his earlier CH conviction. He would not only have served one year with a murder conviction.
As to whether he was 'swanning' anywhere whilst under correctional supervision or on bail awaiting sentencing for DE, it's down to individual interpretations, I think . Completing community service, or doing some shopping isn't swanning around, in my view. Perhaps for others it is. But that is to miss the point (and the key difference) of correctional supervision as opposed to incarceration. (as explored in my earlier post today) Should there have been additional conditions built into his correctional supervision and bail conditions, such as 'you cannot use your uncle's pool/gym, you cannot access satellite/cable TV channels/ you can only go into your uncle's garden for one hour each day?
People of different socio-economic backgrounds get sent to prison. Many of these are released under correctional supervision. Unless you scrap CS completely, or until there is some middle-way series of supervised CS hostels set up, then these socio-economic differences are going to exist under CS. Are you suggesting that Pistorius's period of CS would have been accepted by more people, had he been poor?
If the SCA do decide to hear the appeal and do decide to change the sentence, it won't be for taking an innocent life In anger.
Musing has an excellent response above to your earlier post.
If it is increased it will reflect a much more sensible sentence for someone who deliberately murderered someone by shooting them four times whilst they were cornered like a frightened animal.
For some it seems to be extremely important that Reeva is in some way 'not connected' to this murder, unfortunately as the very graphic photos that her parents agreed to publish, show the results of his actions.
So really, its all semantics when all is said and done........she was murdered, he is a murderer.....and it looks hopeful that he will get a more appropriate sentence at last.
I bet Roux isn't looking forward to this one though.
I'm not sure how you can say that. That he took an innocent life is a fact. Whether it was in anger or not is debatable. The SCA said he gave no reasonable explanation for shooting.
BIB Exactly. It's the 'in anger' bit I was questioning.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/oscar-pistorius-prosecutors-accused-of-having-personal-vendetta-20160916-grigid.html
Probably fear of litigation prevents it appearing closer to home. It is a sign of increasing desperation from those too spineless to reveal their identity preferring to be known only as ‘sources in the Pistorius legal team and among his friends’
Unfortunately I think in their futile efforts to assist Pistorius they may have overlooked the possible consequences of calling into doubt the propriety of a Justice of the SCA.
You must be a Mills and Boon reader to be sucked into his fantasy world
No. Can't bear Mills and Boon.
The fact that OP thought there was an intruder which you have correctly said cannot be changed is the mistake and that cannot be changed.
I think it is important to respect and accept the legal outcome even if one does not agree with it.
Oh well, then you must enjoy your fiction served up by an acknowledged fabricator with more reason than most convicted murders to lie.
I suppose it is inevitable he will fool a few people but thankfully the vast majority can apply simple common sense to see straight through his obvious charade.