Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[The Don]

So now it's reported that if Oscar Pistorius can demonstrate "general anxiety disorder" then there's a chance that he can claim at that moment he had no intent due to temporary diminished capacity and can just walk free.

Of course what that means in terms of the threat he presents to others in the future is anyone's guess.

 

[Rat]

So now it's reported that if Oscar Pistorius can demonstrate "general anxiety disorder" then there's a chance that he can claim at that moment he had no intent due to temporary diminished capacity and can just walk free.

Of course what that means in terms of the threat he presents to others in the future is anyone's guess.

I have had a general anxiety disorder diagnosed in the past (as well as agoraphobia; they seem to overlap somewhat), and I have so far managed to avoid shooting anyone to death. It doesn't seem a lot to ask, to be honest.

 

[The Don]

I have had a general anxiety disorder diagnosed in the past (as well as agoraphobia; they seem to overlap somewhat), and I have so far managed to avoid shooting anyone to death. It doesn't seem a lot to ask, to be honest.

Only because you live in the communist-oppressive EU and have been denied your second amendment rights

 

[MontagK505]

Only because you live in the communist-oppressive EU and have been denied your second amendment rights

That's insulting. Are you suggesting if Rat could get his hands on a firearm he would shoot somebody because of his anxiety disorder?

 

[The Don]

That's insulting. Are you suggesting if Rat could get his hands on a firearm he would shoot somebody because of his anxiety disorder?

No I'm saying that he's being denied that opportunity.

 

[MontagK505]

I have had a general anxiety disorder diagnosed in the past (as well as agoraphobia; they seem to overlap somewhat), and I have so far managed to avoid shooting anyone to death. It doesn't seem a lot to ask, to be honest.

I'm anxious and afraid the paranoids will attack me in my sleep, so I keep a 12 gauge shotgun under my pillow.

 

[MikeG]

That's insulting.......

No, that's irony..........

 

[MontagK505]

No I'm saying that he's being denied that opportunity.

You did use the word "only" which suggests if he had the opportunity, his anxiety disorder would make him kill somebody.

 

[The Don]

I'm anxious and afraid the paranoids will attack me in my sleep, so I keep a 12 gauge shotgun under my pillow.

At least you have that option. Poor Rat is compelled to keep his 12 gauge in a secure gun safe (or else risk losing his shotgun licence) and is denied handguns altogether. Thankfully SA is more enlightened and OP was able to acquire a handgun and mamba rounds.

And yes, it was irony as I hoped the smiley showed.

 

[The Don]

You did use the word "only" which suggests if he had the opportunity, his anxiety disorder would make him kill somebody.

My apologies, I will run future attempts at humour past the syntax police.

 

[MontagK505]

At least you have that option. Poor Rat is compelled to keep his 12 gauge in a secure gun safe (or else risk losing his shotgun licence) and is denied handguns altogether. Thankfully SA is more enlightened and OP was able to acquire a handgun and mamba rounds.

And yes, it was irony as I hoped the smiley showed.

I really don't sleep with a shotgun under my pillow. My lady friend says it spoils the mood.

 

[MontagK505]

My apologies, I will run future attempts at humour past the syntax police.

And I apologize for missing the smiley.

 

[LondonJohn]

So now it's reported that if Oscar Pistorius can demonstrate "general anxiety disorder" then there's a chance that he can claim at that moment he had no intent due to temporary diminished capacity and can just walk free.

Of course what that means in terms of the threat he presents to others in the future is anyone's guess.

I don't think that this is what's happening here at all. It's actually a very shrewd move by the prosecutor, a must-make decision for the judge, and a lose/lose disaster for Pistorius.

What's happened is that Pistorius' defence appears to have opened up the possibility of a diminished-responsibility defence. Now, in order for diminished responsibility to become a judicial factor, Pistorius needs to be clinically assessed as per the state's rules. The talk of "general anxiety disorder" is something of a red herring and ultimately moot.

Pistorius will be assessed, to decide whether he has any sort of mental disorder (whether it's general anxiety disorder or something else) which, in the assessing doctors' view, shows that he was not legally responsible for his actions. The output will be either: Yes, Pistorius has a sufficiently serious mental health condition that he should not be held legally responsible for his actions on Feb 14th 2013; or No, Pistorius has some mental health issues, but none that are serious enough to show that he should not be held legally responsible for his actions.

Either of these outcomes is bad for Pistorius. If it's the latter, then the trial resumes and Pistorius cannot argue (either in this trial or in any possible appeal) that his mental health played a mitigating factor. If it's the former, then this - if anything - is even more of a disaster for Pistorius. It would make it virtually inevitable that the court would find for manslaughter under diminished responsibility, and would commit Pistorius (possibly indefinitely) to a secure psychiatric unit where he would be held and treated until the doctors deemed that he no longer posed a threat.

In my opinion, it's extremely likely that the answer coming out of the 30-day assessment will be the latter: that Pistorius does have some mental health issues, but none that diminish his responsibility in regard to the shooting. And if/when that happens, then the trial resumes - but with Pistorius' defence strategy further damaged. But it's my opinion that if there were a finding of diminished responsibility, this could actually be a worse outcome for Pistorius. I don't think anybody should be under the illusion that it would be a case of "just walking free".

 

[katy_did]

I don't think that this is what's happening here at all. It's actually a very shrewd move by the prosecutor, a must-make decision for the judge, and a lose/lose disaster for Pistorius.

What's happened is that Pistorius' defence appears to have opened up the possibility of a diminished-responsibility defence. Now, in order for diminished responsibility to become a judicial factor, Pistorius needs to be clinically assessed as per the state's rules. The talk of "general anxiety disorder" is something of a red herring and ultimately moot.

Pistorius will be assessed, to decide whether he has any sort of mental disorder (whether it's general anxiety disorder or something else) which, in the assessing doctors' view, shows that he was not legally responsible for his actions. The output will be either: Yes, Pistorius has a sufficiently serious mental health condition that he should not be held legally responsible for his actions on Feb 14th 2013; or No, Pistorius has some mental health issues, but none that are serious enough to show that he should not be held legally responsible for his actions.

Either of these outcomes is bad for Pistorius. If it's the latter, then the trial resumes and Pistorius cannot argue (either in this trial or in any possible appeal) that his mental health played a mitigating factor. If it's the former, then this - if anything - is even more of a disaster for Pistorius. It would make it virtually inevitable that the court would find for manslaughter under diminished responsibility, and would commit Pistorius (possibly indefinitely) to a secure psychiatric unit where he would be held and treated until the doctors deemed that he no longer posed a threat.

In my opinion, it's extremely likely that the answer coming out of the 30-day assessment will be the latter: that Pistorius does have some mental health issues, but none that diminish his responsibility in regard to the shooting. And if/when that happens, then the trial resumes - but with Pistorius' defence strategy further damaged. But it's my opinion that if there were a finding of diminished responsibility, this could actually be a worse outcome for Pistorius. I don't think anybody should be under the illusion that it would be a case of "just walking free".

I'm not sure I agree. If the question were only whether he was criminally responsible or not, then the defence psychiatrist's statement that an anxiety disorder wouldn't affect his ability to tell right from wrong should have been an answer to that.

I think the defence's purpose in calling the psychiatrist wasn't to open up the possibility of a diminished responsibility defence, but rather to address the "reasonable person" test for culpable homicide, both in terms of the verdict and also sentencing if he's found guilty. Although it's an objective test, that doesn't mean to say that factors like Pistorius' disability and allegedly excessive anxiety can't be considered as factors, or at any rate I think that's what the defence is trying to argue here. Whether what Pistorius did is reasonable would obviously have to be considered from the point of view of an amputee (along with any attendant psychological factors), not from the perspective of the average able-bodied person.

If in fact the assessment did confirm the psychiatrist's diagnosis of general anxiety disorder, I think that would have the effect on the one hand of making the intruder story more plausible and hence the culpable homicide verdict more likely (i.e. his supposedly excessive fear of intruders would have some confirmation in a psychiatric diagnosis) and also might lead to a lower sentence. If on the other hand the assessment finds nothing significant, the main effect would be that the defence psychiatrist's testimony would be disregarded, which might in turn remove a major mitigating factor and lead to a higher sentence. If the judge doesn't believe he thought he was shooting an intruder then I think it would be irrelevant either way.

 

[catsmate]

I really don't sleep with a shotgun under my pillow. My lady friend says it spoils the mood.

Not to mention oil on the bedclothes.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm not sure I agree. If the question were only whether he was criminally responsible or not, then the defence psychiatrist's statement that an anxiety disorder wouldn't affect his ability to tell right from wrong should have been an answer to that.

I think the defence's purpose in calling the psychiatrist wasn't to open up the possibility of a diminished responsibility defence, but rather to address the "reasonable person" test for culpable homicide, both in terms of the verdict and also sentencing if he's found guilty. Although it's an objective test, that doesn't mean to say that factors like Pistorius' disability and allegedly excessive anxiety can't be considered as factors, or at any rate I think that's what the defence is trying to argue here. Whether what Pistorius did is reasonable would obviously have to be considered from the point of view of an amputee (along with any attendant psychological factors), not from the perspective of the average able-bodied person.

If in fact the assessment did confirm the psychiatrist's diagnosis of general anxiety disorder, I think that would have the effect on the one hand of making the intruder story more plausible and hence the culpable homicide verdict more likely (i.e. his supposedly excessive fear of intruders would have some confirmation in a psychiatric diagnosis) and also might lead to a lower sentence. If on the other hand the assessment finds nothing significant, the main effect would be that the defence psychiatrist's testimony would be disregarded, which might in turn remove a major mitigating factor and lead to a higher sentence. If the judge doesn't believe he thought he was shooting an intruder then I think it would be irrelevant either way.

We should distinguish 'insanity' from 'diminished responsibility' at least conceptually if not legally (that would depend on South African law). Insanity is a complete defence and under the McNaughten rules involves showing either:

a) an inability to distinguish right from wrong, or
b) a failure to understand the nature and quality of the criminal act (you cut off someone's head but thought you were slicing bread)

In E & W the plea is 'not guilty by reason of insanity' and it has virtually disappeared in practise now that the death penalty has been abolished since its main advantage has gone.

Diminished responsibility entails some level of guilt but (again in E & W) to a less serious offence. In fact, AFAIK its only use is in reducing murder to manslaughter. It signifies a disorder of the mind but not necessarily insanity (in the defined sense).

Maybe Skwinty or someone can help us with the SA equivalent of these concepts (apologies if this is already upthread but I have missed a few pages). I agree with you Katy that applying the objective standard of the reasonable man does not preclude taking into account factors peculiar to Oscar - thus it must be the reasonable man with no legs and, if Oscar was traumatised by their removal in a manner which is clinically verifiable, then it means the reasonable man with no legs suffering from the particular trauma.

ETA the clue that your thinking is along the right lines is his not guilty plea to culpable homicide. With diminished responsibility, there is usually a plea to a lesser offence. OP is hoping to win the whole shooting match.

 

[Skwinty]

AFAIK, if the 30 day observation shows him to suffer from GAD, then this could be used in mitigation of sentence.

Dr Vorster testified that the GAD could have played a role in his reaction, but didn't diminish his criminal liability.

I think the aim of the prosecution is to rule out the possibility of diminished responsibility as a third defense and closing the door to this line in any future appeals.

As far as the reasonable person, reasonable amputee issue, a third and more important issue is the reasonable gun owner. South Africa has exceptionally stringent gun laws.

 

[Skwinty]

Remember the mystery women who approached the court twice to have Pistorius committed for 60 days psychiatric observation and was turned away?

Looks like the court should have heeded her advice.

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/content...-was-contacted-in-a-dream-by-Pistorius-mother

"A woman, whose requested to address the Pretoria Magistrate's Court on the "mental state" of murder accused athlete Oscar Pistorius, has approached the Constitutional Court, the Saturday Star reported.

The woman, who identified herself as "Annamarie, last name uncertain, previously Riethmiller" in court on Thursday, has since filed papers with the Constitutional Court to have her application heard.

According to the report, she said she was contacted in a dream by Pistorius' mother Sheila, who told her to make sure Pistorius was sent for psychiatric evaluation."

 

[DarthFishy]

Remember the mystery women who approached the court twice to have Pistorius committed for 60 days psychiatric observation and was turned away?

Looks like the court should have heeded her advice.

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/content...-was-contacted-in-a-dream-by-Pistorius-mother

"A woman, whose requested to address the Pretoria Magistrate's Court on the "mental state" of murder accused athlete Oscar Pistorius, has approached the Constitutional Court, the Saturday Star reported.

The woman, who identified herself as "Annamarie, last name uncertain, previously Riethmiller" in court on Thursday, has since filed papers with the Constitutional Court to have her application heard.

According to the report, she said she was contacted in a dream by Pistorius' mother Sheila, who told her to make sure Pistorius was sent for psychiatric evaluation."

I've heard of an 'Annamarie' as a semi-famous local psychic. Or perhaps it's just through the Pistorius trial.

 

[Skwinty]

Annamarie claims to be the ex-wife of Dr Gerald Versfeld, who amputated Pistorius' legs when he was a child.