Pistorius: Another vulnerable defendant goes to prison

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on twitter

Pistorius: Another vulnerable defendant goes to prison

Sketch by Isobel Williams

[contextly_auto_sidebar id=”zg3c0VNyzTh7qvW05w20aNBgi1SBBdXH”]

Sketch by Isobel Williams. www.isobelwilliams.blogspot.co.uk

Sketch by Isobel Williams. www.isobelwilliams.blogspot.co.uk

If you’ll pardon the pun it was fatal for the prosecution when they had to accept Oscar Pistorius was on his stumps, in his home and shooting at the toilet door. Every case must have a theory to hang the evidence on in a logical way. Here the theory was flawed as it was based on an incorrect assessment of the trajectory.

The ultimate conclusion that Oscar Pistorius was effectively shooting without thinking (without intent) was almost inevitable.

He was convicted of culpable homicide, which is the equivalent of manslaughter and sentenced today to five years’ imprisonment, along with a suspended penalty for firearms offences. It could have been longer but even a portion will be tough for such a high profile defendant who has demonstrated so much emotion, who has no legs and no recognisable future.

Apparently the prosecution suggested that disability in Oscar Pistorius’ case was not a mitigating factor which is a shocker when one considers they were so in error over that very issue. Of course, disability makes a difference in the context of imprisonment – it’s tough enough for someone with no criminal past, without needing prosthetic limbs and counselling.

Anyone in the criminal justice system is vulnerable but some more so than others – not as vulnerable as a woman in the toilet in a gated community with attendant paranoia – but vulnerable to close scrutiny and here also an attack dog style of cross examination and ultimately prison. Just have a look at the stats for prison suicide and prisoners with mental health problems to get an idea of what courts have to consider. The judge clearly saw through all the nonsense and remained sensible to what is hopefully the last, recognising the rules for the privileged are no different from those who are less fortunate. No sentence will bring back Reeva Steenkamp. No apology will end her parents’ grief but, in a sense, it is a relief to see that South Africa, with all its issues, can deal with such a high profile case with dignity.

3 responses to “Pistorius: Another vulnerable defendant goes to prison”

  1. Oscar Pistorius could show his remorse by writing a book and donating the proceeds to a suitable charity, as Reeva Steenkamp’s family apparently do not want to accept compensation from him, and he could offer to meet them if they want to. He could also use his celebrity to campaign (in prison and outside) against guns and knives.

    A similar package could be offered by Ched Evans, the footballer (who is convicted of rape unless and until his appeal succeeds; he could donate his huge salary except for a modest living wage. A restorative meeting (if his victim wants it) might also be a better place than a court of law for the two of them to hear each other’s understanding of what really happened.

  2. stephen gibbs says:

    Sorry Felicity but for all your Learnedness you are stretching the facts and circumstances of a convicted defendant to cover your point about disability and vulnerability here.

    i limit my comments on the facts of the case, to say just that the case failed on much more than the trajectory of the shots fired.

    What do you suggest here? That the court has no right to impose a custodial sentence on Pistorius? And what of other cases involving a disabled defendant, no imprisonment for the vulnerable…or do you really mean no imprisonment for *the* disabled?

    Vulnerability is not confined to mental of physical disability. Lots if not all prisoners are vulnerable, but moreover when sentenced they are Guilty.

    Your statement that vulnerability is for “some more so than others” reminds this reader at least of Orwell’s Animal Farm Equality – its is wrong.

    By the way I for one find your smart comment about the Victim and that few are more vulnerable than “a woman…in the toilet..with..paranoia” to be distasteful, and disrespectful.


  3. It’s hard to imagine any other non-celebrity disabled defendant receiving such a lenient sentence as 10 months in prison for killing his partner.

Related Posts