|
 A stony-faced Pistorius stared straight ahead as police officers
escorted him into the court building. He declined to answer
questions from the scrum of reporters but greeted his family inside
the court with smiles and hugs.
After a six-month, on-off trial that captivated South Africa and
millions more around the world who admired Pistorius as a symbol of
triumph over physical adversity, opinion is starkly divided on the
eventual outcome.
A non-custodial sentence would be likely to spark public anger,
fuelling a perception among black South Africans that, 20 years
after the end of apartheid, wealthy whites can still secure
preferential justice.
"At the end of the day a young lady was killed and someone should
pay for it," said 57-year-old Mildred Lekalakala, a member of the
Women's League of the ruling African National Congress.
The 27-year-old Paralympic and Olympic athlete, whose lower legs
were amputated as a baby, was convicted of culpable homicide last
month for the Valentine's Day shooting of 29-year-old law graduate
and model Reeva Steenkamp.
Judge Thokozile Masipa cleared Pistorius of the more serious charge
of murder, saying prosecutors had failed to prove his intent to kill
when he fired four 9mm rounds through the door of a toilet cubicle,
in what he said was the mistaken belief an intruder was hiding
behind it.
A murder conviction would have almost certainly carried a jail
sentence. Culpable homicide, South Africa's equivalent of
manslaughter, can be punished by anything from 15 years in jail to a
suspended sentence or community service.
In a front page headline on Friday, South Africa's Times newspaper
cited experts saying: 'Oscar won't go to jail'. Conversely,
Johannesburg's Star said he was likely to get as many as 10 years
behind bars, with a portion suspended.
At the sentencing hearing, Masipa is expected to hear arguments from
prosecution and defense, possibly for as long as a day each, and
psychological and probation experts before making her ruling.
[to top of second column] |
LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS
The decision by 66-year-old Masipa, only the second black woman to
rise to South Africa's bench, to absolve Pistorius of murder drew
criticism from many legal experts and the public in a country
infamous for violence, particularly against women.
The professional criticism centered on the legal notion of intent
via 'dolus eventualis', whereby a person is held responsible for the
foreseeable consequences of their actions. Laymen have pondered the
practical consequences of the ruling, in particular what it meant
for the legal principle of self-defense.
Pistorius said the shooting in his upmarket Pretoria home was a
tragic mistake, but at the trial prosecutors presented a written
firearms license test in which he acknowledged that using lethal
force against an intruder was only allowed if there was a direct
threat to a person's life.
With this in mind, as well as the questions over Masipa's ruling on
intent, the state could yet decide to appeal the culpable verdict in
pursuit of a murder conviction.
"We have many judgments which essentially say: 'If you point a
firearm at someone and shoot, then you intend to kill them'," said
Steve Tucson, a law professor at Johannesburg's Wit waters rand
University.
Under South African law, an appeal cannot be launched until
sentencing has been concluded.
(Writing by Ed Cropley; Editing by Joe Brock)
[© 2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2014 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
