Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[trustbutverify]

Frankly the case needs analysis by someone who has time to properly trawl through the evidence. I discount the idea that all data points have ambiguous interpretations, which is what would be a necessary condition for a crime that leads to the present proclaimed uncertainty. Somewhere is a locking piece, the question can be resolved. I would certainly not bet my life that he believed it was an intruder, but it fits the evidence and common sense better.

I strongly disagree, but at least you're allowing for a remote possibility your initial conclusion could be incorrect.

 

[MikeG]

........I would certainly not bet my life that he believed it was an intruder, but it fits the evidence and common sense better.

I agree with this.

But to shoot in those circumstances is still murder.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm not sure that Samson recognises even yet that Pistorius was convicted without any finding or assumption that he deliberately shot at Reeva, and that he was sentenced on the basis of his having blasted recklessly at someone he wrongly assumed was an intruder. That he would have copped a significantly longer sentence if it had been proved that he deliberately murdered Reeva.

This has been explained on innumerable occasions by multiple posters, but I have a feeling it's not getting through.

 

[MikeG]

Samson appears untroubled by facts. These things should, apparently, be decided entirely by emotion.

 

[Samson]

I guess there are a few thought experiments.
1. If he had killed an armed intruder, would the sentence be the same?

 

[ddt]

I guess there are a few thought experiments.
1. If he had killed an armed intruder, would the sentence be the same?

At least the same. The murder conviction would still stand, because an armed intruder holed up in a small bathroom stall is not an imminent threat.

Really, this is getting tedious, it's been explained to you umpteen times but you seemingly refuse to take it to heart.

 

[Elagabalus]

At least the same. The murder conviction would still stand, because an armed intruder holed up in a small bathroom stall is not an imminent threat.

Really, this is getting tedious, it's been explained to you umpteen times but you seemingly refuse to take it to heart.

Some of us are having trouble with SA courts being allowed to change the sentence after OP has been convicted and the punishment set. Would courts in the Netherlands be allowed to change the punishment for a convicted criminal?

 

[Rolfe]

Appeals by the prosecution against a sentence which they believe to be too lenient are allowed in a number of countries, so I don't think this is especially out of the ordinary. As the sentence imposed was well below the stipulated minimum for the crime I would have thought that if the right of appeal existed in the SA jurisdiction then this of all cases is one where I would have expected it to be used.

 

[Rolfe]

I guess there are a few thought experiments.
1. If he had killed an armed intruder, would the sentence be the same?

As ddt said, it would still have been murder even if the intruder had been armed. Given that 15 years is the minimum sentence for murder (except in Masipa-land, and she's been schooled), then I don't see how any reduction in sentence on account of the intruder having been armed would be possible. He's already on the minimum.

Ask rather what the sentence would have been if the court had believed beyond reasonable doubt that Pistorius knew it was Reeva in the cubicle. My guess is north of 20 years.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Some of us are having trouble with SA courts being allowed to change the sentence after OP has been convicted and the punishment set. Would courts in the Netherlands be allowed to change the punishment for a convicted criminal?

A lot of countries have this, it's a lottery in some ways when you go to Appeal because it basically suspends your sentence until the new court determines your guilt and then re-sentences you. In a lot of cases that means either a decrease in sentence, or the reinstatement of the current one, but sometimes, when either the prosecution has appealed what they feel is a lenient sentence, or sometimes when the Appeal Court itself thinks that the Trial Judge was too lenient, it can actually result in getting an increased sentence.

You play the Appeal Lottery and sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose.

Some examples include Ursula Haverbeck who appealed her sentence in Germany for Holocaust Denial and had her initial 8 month sentence extended by 2 years. Amanda Knox had her sentence for giving false testimony about others to the police extended even though she was found Not Guilty of the murder and staging a burglary on Appeal. In the UK, John Stephenson Wright had his 18 year sentence for Child Rape increased by 18 months on losing his appeal and just to rub salt into the wound, the court gave him another 42 days for wasting their time when he appealed that.

so yeah, it happens

 

[MikeG]

Some of us are having trouble with SA courts being allowed to change the sentence after OP has been convicted and the punishment set. Would courts in the Netherlands be allowed to change the punishment for a convicted criminal?

Here in the UK.......yes, absolutely. This can and does happen, and not infrequently. The CPS appeals against the leniency of a sentence, and the appeals court often increases it. In fact, there have been one or two odd ones where the criminal has appealed against the length of his sentence, arguing for a shorter one, and the appeals courts have lengthened rather than shortened it.

A lot of countries have this, it's a lottery in some ways when you go to Appeal because it basically suspends your sentence until the new court determines your guilt and then re-sentences you..........

IANAL, but my understanding is that this isn't what happens in the UK. You can appeal against your conviction (in which case your description is accurate) or you can appeal against your sentence (ie you believe the sentence is too long, mitigating factors weren't given due consideration, and so on), in which case your guilt or innocence isn't questioned, just the length of your sentence.

 

[PhantomWolf]

IANAL, but my understanding is that this isn't what happens in the UK. You can appeal against your conviction (in which case your description is accurate) or you can appeal against your sentence (ie you believe the sentence is too long, mitigating factors weren't given due consideration, and so on), in which case your guilt or innocence isn't questioned, just the length of your sentence.

Basically the same situation, just they don't need to consider guilt or innocent, or more likely a court procedural error, and just look directly at the sentencing. They can still extend a sentence that has been appealed by the convicted person, and have done so.

 

[Samson]

At least the same. The murder conviction would still stand, because an armed intruder holed up in a small bathroom stall is not an imminent threat.

Really, this is getting tedious, it's been explained to you umpteen times but you seemingly refuse to take it to heart.

I see a disconnect between law and ethics every time I find a new case to study. I am not troubled by the idea I am being regarded as an incalcitrant 8 year old.

 

[MikeG]

I see a disconnect between law and ethics every time I find a new case to study.........

Every time you study a case you mangle the evidence to suit your "ethics", utterly disregard the law, call for the poor put-upon murderer to be freed and for Theresa May to be hung, drawn and quartered. It's always her fault. Don't come here and start talking to us about ethics.

 

[ddt]

Some of us are having trouble with SA courts being allowed to change the sentence after OP has been convicted and the punishment set. Would courts in the Netherlands be allowed to change the punishment for a convicted criminal?

I don't see what's so hard to grasp about that.

Either party can appeal the verdict, and in the Dutch penal system, the Appeals Court does everything from findings of fact to findings of law to sentencing over. After that, there's appeal at the Supreme Court which only reviews the findings of law, and if they find fault with that, turns the matter back to a court of first instance.

The verdict and the sentence is only final when all appeals have been exhausted or the time limit for lodging an appeal has run out. I would think that that principle is universal in all jurisdictions, so I have a hard time that someone cannot grok that.

Oh, and many jurisdictions (including the Dutch) also have a procedure that upon new (exonerating) evidence, a convicted criminal may petition to reopen the proceedings, a route which is not open to the public prosecutor (IIRC England allows that for very egregious cases, but they're alone in that). In the Dutch case, revision can also be petitioned in case the convicted criminal has already served the complete sentence, e.g., in the case of butler Dick van Leeuwerden who was convicted in 1985 to 12 years for murdering his employer and filed his 7th petition for review with the Dutch Supreme Court in 2013.

 

[ddt]

I see a disconnect between law and ethics every time I find a new case to study. I am not troubled by the idea I am being regarded as an incalcitrant 8 year old.

Make that a 5 year old; 8 year olds can read and your posts bear no evidence that you actually read the replies you got each time you complained about Pistorius' sentence. Moreover, none of your posts thus far bear evidence of the disconnect between law and ethics you now claim; all your whining about the sentence was done in the context of a discussion about legal matters, not ethical.

FWIW, I don't see that disconnect at all in this case. It jives with my ethics that lethal force, such as shooting at someone, should only be permitted when there's a real, immediate threat to your own life (or a third party's life).

 

[Rolfe]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to challenge existing law if you think it's unethical, immoral or unfair. But Samson seemed to be demanding that the SA judges should rule according to his personal understanding of ethics without troubling themselves with the existing legal framework.

News flash. If you think a particular law is unjust, call for it to be changed. Don't expect judges to make rulings against the law as it stands.

 

[MikeG]

Yeah, and best of luck with "I demand the right to shoot at a target I can't see if I get a bit frightened". No postman or medic would ever knock on a front door again, for a start.

 

[Samson]

Every time you study a case you mangle the evidence to suit your "ethics", utterly disregard the law, call for the poor put-upon murderer to be freed and for Theresa May to be hung, drawn and quartered. It's always her fault. Don't come here and start talking to us about ethics.

Is there a better place??

 

[MikeG]

Is there a better place??

Yep, there is.