The Oscar Pistorius trial.

Just because he's eligible for parole in such a short time doesn't mean he'll get it... right?

Gail, you have been so helpful and no matter how well justice was or wasn't served, this was very educational.

Thanks for your knowledge and your patience to explain it!

Perks said:

Gail, you have been so helpful and no matter how well justice was or wasn't served, this was very educational.

Thanks for your knowledge and your patience to explain it!

Click to expand...

Absolutely. It was great having someone there who could explain it all to us.

MM

Thanks Gail. I've looked forward to your explanations during the trial, as well as everyone's viewpoints. You rock!

Yes, I read there might be a round 2. Some legal experts think the judge misinterpreted the law.

So is there no double jeopardy in S. Africa?

So, murderer after all?

Gail, in South Africa the prosecution can appeal? Will this be a carousel of appeals or is it one-and-done?

Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp after South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal overturned the previous conviction of culpable homicide.

State prosecutors appealed the verdict of culpable homicide, seeking a conviction on more severe charges.

The original court judgment had been "fundamentally flawed," Leach said.

Pistorius shot girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, a model, four times through a locked toilet door on Valentine's Day 2013, saying he mistook her for an intruder.

His jail term hasn't been decided, but he faces up to 15 years in prison.

Click to expand...

Here is video of the judge delivering the ruling - http://www.enca.com/south-africa/catch-it-live-oscar-pistoriuss-be-decided

My faith in our judicial system has been somewhat restored. Now we wait for the sentencing, which I hope is going to follow suit.

I'm listening to the appeal judge's ruling and am amazed at the quote from Masipa that she accepted Oscar's distraught behavior at the scene (as reported by his doctor friend) as evidence that he didn't know (and couldn't have known) that it was Reeva in the toilet cubicle.

Oscar's begging God to save her, and railing about how sorry he was, is only evidence that he was very upset. It didn't bolster or undermine any narrative presented. If it had somehow been asserted that he'd been coldly stoic at the scene, then testimony to his praying and crying might have been important, but that the judge in the first trial found his in-the-moment-horror in any way compelling as a matter of verifying his story is weird to me. His upset is neutral in the truth of his defense narrative.

ETA - I should note that the above observation does not seem to have played into this judge's ruling. I just found it interesting. The appeal judge did find that the original court's satisfaction that Oscar didn't know it was Reeva doesn't get him out of the soup for murdering an indeterminate someone in the toilet cubicle. That seems to be the first sticking point of his ruling.

ETA2 - Finished the judge's commentary. That was most enjoyable. He didn't believe Oscar at all, but he was careful to support the original judge's professional diligence under the bizarre circus atmosphere of the first trial. The points of law that hooked in this new verdict were subtle, but well-diagrammed in this appeal. South African jurisprudence is, at least in this example, fascinating and admirably thorough.

He's repulsive, and somehow pitiful. I'm sure his panic right now is boundless. And I actually believe he's very sorry for having killed Reeva. Unfortunately for him, you can't get a freebie. There can never be a provision to forgive one murder as a wake-up call for someone to get his temper under rein. Our pursuit of justice cannot calculate into its processes how sorry anyone is after the fact. There's nothing special about regret.

It's terrible, for everyone, that Oscar Pistorius was inattentive to how out of control he got when offended or angry. It's too late for tears and barfing over the seriousness of his inability to control himself. I don't take any particular joy in how terrified he must be, but I can't help but feel a grim satisfaction that such a dishonest and intelligence-insulting defense performance will not be rewarded.

GailD said:

I think the sentence is too lenient, but I understand that the state could not prove intent. That's what makes the difference. And he can get parole after serving half to three quarters of his sentence. 3 - 4 years.

Click to expand...

This is interesting. I remember back in the beginning when we were comparing the SA justice system with the US process and you told us that there is only one murder charge, not degrees of it. (Roughly, 1st degree murder here in the US is a premeditated act, 2nd degree is spontaneous, the "crime of passion". The sought murder classification is stated from the outset of the trial.) What you've said here makes me think that the "degree" of the act doesn't come into play until sentencing. Is that right? If so, that makes a lot of sense. I've been very impressed with the logic and methods of the SA judicial system.

In the US, 2nd degree murder will almost always carry a shorter sentence than 1st degree. The murder of Reeva Steenkamp, in my opinion, would be a hard sell as a premeditated act. The most believable descriptions of the incident always made it sound like Oscar just blew up, that he lost control of his temper in a late-night fight and impulsively pumped bullets into the bathroom door in fury and frustration. In all but the crucial moment, I don't think Oscar Pistorius wanted to hurt Reeva Steenkamp. Not physically, anyway. And even then, it's plausible that he was so far into the red mist of inarticulate rage that he was beyond the reach of the calculations of the consequences to Reeva. It's no excuse, but I think it puts it squarely into what we'd call 2nd degree and what the SA judicial system does in sentencing by weighing intent.

Six years seems light, but I know that 8 to 12 years is not atypical here in the US for some 2nd degree murder convictions.