A discussion on Oscar Pistorius being given presidential pardon by Jacob Zuma
Given below are mainly my comments from a Facebook post (not my post), https://www.facebook.com/sathyanarayana.raju.9/posts/819986764804476 :
[The post itself was a link to the article, Jacob Zuma signs a presidential pardon for Pistorius, http://smithrise.com/willie-pardon/, dated July 13th 2016. I was asked for my view.]
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
Thanks --name-snipped--. I had not expected this. But, perhaps, the guy has already suffered immensely, the girl's parents have forgiven him, and perhaps the President was right in utilizing his executive power in this case.
---
[In response to two comments which expressed shock at my above words, "Suffered enough??? He murdered his girlfriend!!!" as well as disappointment, "I am disappointed in that comment. He is a convicted murderer",]
Ravi S. Iyer wrote (slightly edited):
Well, as I understood from what I had followed of the case, the issue was intent. He thought that the person was a robber and that the robber would fire back at him. He seems to have over-reacted and been trigger happy, under the perceived threat of danger, like in the case of some recent killings in the USA by police.
I don't think it was established that he deliberately killed his girlfriend. I don't think his remorse in the courtroom about having killed his girlfriend (by mistake as he said, which I believe), was faked.
However, you folks may have a different view. That's fine by me. .... For me, the issue was, so what if he thought it was a robber. Yes, very unfortunately there seems to be a lot of crime in South Africa. But does that justify him firing at the presumed robber in the bathroom and killing the person (which turned out to be his girlfriend)? Should he not have issued a clear warning and done things carefully and judiciously?
But then what I realize is that countries which are rather free in permitting civilians to carry guns, live by different laws & rules. Somehow I felt I could not really get deeper into this matter. I felt the first judge's (black lady judge's) verdict and sentence was quite just, even if it disappointed some, including the unfortunate victim's family. I think it was then ruled as involuntary manslaughter or something like that.
----
SaiDas wrote:
You are repeating the defense counsel's argument which of course is to create reasonable enough doubt to get its client off. It reminds me of OJ Simpsons team saying the murders could have been a hit from a drug cartel but we all know what the truth is. One should not take attorneys or politicians at their word as their job description is pretty much to lie, mislead and distort to serve their interests.
----
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
Noted your comment Sai Das. Responding at outer level. ... Looked up the wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius, "On 12 September, Pistorius was found guilty of culpable homicide and one firearm-related charge, of reckless endangerment related to discharging a firearm in a restaurant. He was found not guilty of two firearm-related charges relating to illegal possession of ammunition and firing a firearm through the sunroof of a car. On 21 October 2014, he received a prison sentence of a maximum of five years for culpable homicide and a concurrent three-year suspended prison sentence for the separate reckless endangerment conviction." ... From the wiki on culpable homicide for South Africa, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpable_homicide#South_Africa, '"Culpable homicide" has been defined (in South African law) simply as "the unlawful negligent killing of a human being", the rough equivalent of involuntary manslaughter in Anglo-American law.'
----
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
From the Pistorius wiki again, 'On 4 November 2014, prosecutors applied to the sentencing judge for permission to appeal the culpable homicide verdict, stating that the five-year prison term was "shockingly light, inappropriate and would not have been imposed by any reasonable court". Judge Thokozile Masipa ruled on 10 December 2014 that the prosecution could challenge her ruling of acquitting Pistorius of premeditated murder and the lesser charge of culpable homicide. However, she ruled that the state could not appeal the length of the sentence. The case was then set for appeal in front of a five-person panel at the Supreme Court of Appeal.'
----
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
Now I don't know what exactly happened in the review case where he was convicted of murder. I don't have the time to get into it now. ... But I had followed the Pistorius case in quite some detail in 2014, and felt that the judge was quite a balanced and capable judge.
----
Sai Das wrote:
Do you know if this was a plea bargain? If not, this is what defense counsel's do; get the charge reduced if you can't get get an acquittal.
----
Ravi S. Iyer wrote (slightly edited):
Maybe Pistorius murdered his girlfriend i.e. it was premeditated or at least intentional at that spur of the moment. But it has to be proved in a court of law. That's how it is. Otherwise miscarriage of justice can happen. ... It is incredible how mobs can quickly become blood thirsty and want to hang people. And in rural India, I have heard of horrible miscarriage of justice, just horrible. Witnesses lie, false cases are made .... scary stuff. So I am all for due process in law. ... And finally I believe that no person can escape the Karmic punishment even if he/she escapes punishment from law of the land (except in rarest of rare cases where God is moved by deep prayer of the devotee to cancel the Karma).
---
Sai Das wrote:
There is a difference between due process and getting a client off via wrangling and deals. I'm not a "just hang 'em." sort of person but I know how these things tend to work and it isn't always about justice being served.
----
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
Don't know about the plea bargain thing. I don't recall hearing anything of that sort. ... The prosecution was very tough. It was shown live on CNN international over many days. ... I think the prosecution could not prove intent or premeditation to the level of proof needed for such conviction.
----
Ravi S. Iyer wrote (slightly edited):
If I recall correctly, I saw on TV/Internet, Oscar Pistorius being grilled by a seasoned public prosecutor. Pistorius story held up. Pistorius came across to me as a broken man during the trial. Perhaps he was putting on a show - but if so he is a very good actor. I think the prosecution simply failed to prove malicious intent to the required standard of proof to get the murder conviction at that trial (2014). I don't think any deals were done like a plea bargain deal.
I don't know about details about the O.J. Simpson case. Perhaps in that case, OJ came across as a triumphant winner, and that bugged the hell out of people. Here Pistorius was sentenced to five years in jail. It is another matter that he could come out of jail after perhaps less than a year, as per South African law, and be under house arrest or something like that. ... OJ was acquitted of all criminal charges, wasn't he? And there was a theatrical car chase too. That sounded too weird. Whereas Pistorius went by the book after the killing of his girlfriend. He was clearly respectful and subservient to the court during the trial.
I don't know whether OJ flaunted his dream lawyers team and acted as some sort of macho hero who the law could not catch. If so, then that would got some viewers of his trial, mad. ... He lost a civil case later on (the case wiki states that) - perhaps as civil cases have lower standards of proof and so the case could successfully be mounted against him in a civil court.
----
Ravi S. Iyer wrote (slightly edited):
I need to write this too. Hope this won't create any controversy. I don't know whether you folks know how bad the crime situation in some parts of South Africa is. I was told some time back of an incident some years ago, around 2009/2010 perhaps, where an Indian origin young man in South Africa who was driving a Mercedes (or some other luxury type car) not only had his car robbed from him, but was shot in the head at point blank range which was captured by closed circuit camera. The man was in a coma for a few days. The mother asked a local Puttaparthi person to give letters on the matter to Swami... The man died after a few days.
I was told of another case where robbers got into an Indian origin family house in one of the cities of SA, probably Johannesburg. They were armed with guns. The robbers joked about getting rid of the Indians as there were too many Indians in SA or something like that, in front of the family living there. The mother was terrified and asked for permission to go to the prayer room to pray to Baba, after which she said they could do whatever they wanted. They let her go to the prayer room and pray. When she came out of the prayer room, the robbers had gone without killing anybody in the family.
Horrendous stories. It is quite a scary life for some Indian origin families living in South Africa, according to these stories conveyed to me by a friend who has lots of friends in South Africa.
It is in this context that the trigger-happy kind of behaviour of Pistorius has to be viewed. I don't think most places in India or USA face such problems of regular and rather horrendous crime as some cities in South Africa do. Perhaps both the judge's initial verdict and the President's pardon has to be viewed in this context of horrendous and rather common violent crime in cities of South Africa.
----
Sai Das wrote (edited):
All defendants like these are instructed to present themselves as remorseful as they can but not to engage the jury in any way. Some are better actors than others; OJ was an actor too. He was convicted in civil court which really proved his guilt for the most part. Obviously, just because one isn't convicted in a (case) doesn't mean innocence.
----
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
Sai Das. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Oscar_Pistorius, "There was no jury, the jury system in South Africa being abolished during apartheid." In India too, there is no jury. It is the judge who decides on guilt or innocence.
----
[In response to a comment about a bitter fallout between Pistorius and his girlfriend, and a jealous streak in Pistorius,]
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:--name-snipped--, I recall how the prosecution side in the 2014 trial showed that his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, was worried about how Pistorius would get angry at her, and that she believed he was jealous and possessive. From the wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Oscar_Pistorius:
On 24 March, the court heard testimony about messages sent on iPhones between Pistorius and Steenkamp using WhatsApp. Ninety percent of them were described as loving and normal, but there were several from Steenkamp accusing Pistorius of jealousy and possessiveness. In one of them, sent less than three weeks before her killing, Steenkamp told Pistorius "I'm scared of you sometimes, of how you snap at me", and described his behaviour as "nasty".
...
The court's verdict, which was arrived at unanimously by the judge and her two assessors, was delivered by Judge Masipa over two days, with the formal verdict delivered on 12 September 2014. On 11 September Judge Masipa dismissed much of the state's circumstantial evidence, while also describing Pistorius as a "very poor witness". Judge Masipa said the state had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Pistorius was guilty of premeditated murder and also ruled out dolus eventualis, i.e. common murder, accepting that "he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility, that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased as he thought she was in the bedroom". However, Judge Masipa said culpable homicide was a competent verdict, i.e. a lesser offence that is a possible alternative verdict. She said a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have "foreseen the possibility that if he fired four shots whoever was behind the toilet [door] might be struck and die as a result". She said Pistorius "failed to take any steps to avoid the death", "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and his actions were clearly negligent. On 12 September Judge Masipa found Pistorius not guilty of murder but guilty of the culpable homicide of Steenkamp and guilty of reckless endangerment with a firearm at a restaurant in a separate incident. He was found not guilty of the charges relating to discharging a firearm through the sunroof of a car and illegal possession of ammunition.
-- end wiki extracts ---
Ravi: I find the above extracts to reflect my impression when I was following the case then (on live TV - CNN International was broadcasting it live, and on the Internet).
It was a possibility that Pistorius was furious with Steenkamp and created a scenario where he could kill her and claim it to be an accident. But it was only a possiblity. For the possibility to be viewed as very probable, there would have to be some supporting evidence. E.g. if Pistorius had physically abused her in the past and threatened in a fit of rage to kill her. That was not shown/demonstrated in this court case. I don't think there was even an allegation of physical abuse by Pistorius against Steenkamp and/or a threat to kill her in a fit of rage. Had that been there, perhaps the case would have got viewed more negatively against Pistorius.
Now we don't know what really happened. But I don't think it can be presumed that Pistorius planned this killing due to jealousy and fury against Steenkamp, without strong evidence or psychological profile of him that fit such a case. The psychological profile provided by a psychologist (a defense witness) did not paint such a picture. I don't think the prosecution put up an alternative psychological profile (perhaps they could not get any psychologist giving a negative rage-killer profile of Pistorius).
And I don't think his celeb status mattered in the judgement in 2014.
I did not follow the later appeal to Supreme court which held him guilty of murder (thus disagreeing with the 2014 verdict). I don't have the time to read up on it. Similarly, I don't have the time to read up on why President Jacob Zuma decided to pardon him.
----
[The commenter wrote, "Ravi S. Iyer wonderful point and Good research done. I have nothing more to add".]
[I thank Wikipedia and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extracts from their website on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
[The post itself was a link to the article, Jacob Zuma signs a presidential pardon for Pistorius, http://smithrise.com/willie-pardon/, dated July 13th 2016. I was asked for my view.]
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
Thanks --name-snipped--. I had not expected this. But, perhaps, the guy has already suffered immensely, the girl's parents have forgiven him, and perhaps the President was right in utilizing his executive power in this case.
---
[In response to two comments which expressed shock at my above words, "Suffered enough??? He murdered his girlfriend!!!" as well as disappointment, "I am disappointed in that comment. He is a convicted murderer",]
Ravi S. Iyer wrote (slightly edited):
Well, as I understood from what I had followed of the case, the issue was intent. He thought that the person was a robber and that the robber would fire back at him. He seems to have over-reacted and been trigger happy, under the perceived threat of danger, like in the case of some recent killings in the USA by police.
I don't think it was established that he deliberately killed his girlfriend. I don't think his remorse in the courtroom about having killed his girlfriend (by mistake as he said, which I believe), was faked.
However, you folks may have a different view. That's fine by me. .... For me, the issue was, so what if he thought it was a robber. Yes, very unfortunately there seems to be a lot of crime in South Africa. But does that justify him firing at the presumed robber in the bathroom and killing the person (which turned out to be his girlfriend)? Should he not have issued a clear warning and done things carefully and judiciously?
But then what I realize is that countries which are rather free in permitting civilians to carry guns, live by different laws & rules. Somehow I felt I could not really get deeper into this matter. I felt the first judge's (black lady judge's) verdict and sentence was quite just, even if it disappointed some, including the unfortunate victim's family. I think it was then ruled as involuntary manslaughter or something like that.
----
SaiDas wrote:
You are repeating the defense counsel's argument which of course is to create reasonable enough doubt to get its client off. It reminds me of OJ Simpsons team saying the murders could have been a hit from a drug cartel but we all know what the truth is. One should not take attorneys or politicians at their word as their job description is pretty much to lie, mislead and distort to serve their interests.
----
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
Noted your comment Sai Das. Responding at outer level. ... Looked up the wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius, "On 12 September, Pistorius was found guilty of culpable homicide and one firearm-related charge, of reckless endangerment related to discharging a firearm in a restaurant. He was found not guilty of two firearm-related charges relating to illegal possession of ammunition and firing a firearm through the sunroof of a car. On 21 October 2014, he received a prison sentence of a maximum of five years for culpable homicide and a concurrent three-year suspended prison sentence for the separate reckless endangerment conviction." ... From the wiki on culpable homicide for South Africa, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpable_homicide#South_Africa, '"Culpable homicide" has been defined (in South African law) simply as "the unlawful negligent killing of a human being", the rough equivalent of involuntary manslaughter in Anglo-American law.'
----
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
From the Pistorius wiki again, 'On 4 November 2014, prosecutors applied to the sentencing judge for permission to appeal the culpable homicide verdict, stating that the five-year prison term was "shockingly light, inappropriate and would not have been imposed by any reasonable court". Judge Thokozile Masipa ruled on 10 December 2014 that the prosecution could challenge her ruling of acquitting Pistorius of premeditated murder and the lesser charge of culpable homicide. However, she ruled that the state could not appeal the length of the sentence. The case was then set for appeal in front of a five-person panel at the Supreme Court of Appeal.'
----
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
Now I don't know what exactly happened in the review case where he was convicted of murder. I don't have the time to get into it now. ... But I had followed the Pistorius case in quite some detail in 2014, and felt that the judge was quite a balanced and capable judge.
----
Sai Das wrote:
Do you know if this was a plea bargain? If not, this is what defense counsel's do; get the charge reduced if you can't get get an acquittal.
----
Ravi S. Iyer wrote (slightly edited):
Maybe Pistorius murdered his girlfriend i.e. it was premeditated or at least intentional at that spur of the moment. But it has to be proved in a court of law. That's how it is. Otherwise miscarriage of justice can happen. ... It is incredible how mobs can quickly become blood thirsty and want to hang people. And in rural India, I have heard of horrible miscarriage of justice, just horrible. Witnesses lie, false cases are made .... scary stuff. So I am all for due process in law. ... And finally I believe that no person can escape the Karmic punishment even if he/she escapes punishment from law of the land (except in rarest of rare cases where God is moved by deep prayer of the devotee to cancel the Karma).
---
Sai Das wrote:
There is a difference between due process and getting a client off via wrangling and deals. I'm not a "just hang 'em." sort of person but I know how these things tend to work and it isn't always about justice being served.
----
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
Don't know about the plea bargain thing. I don't recall hearing anything of that sort. ... The prosecution was very tough. It was shown live on CNN international over many days. ... I think the prosecution could not prove intent or premeditation to the level of proof needed for such conviction.
----
Ravi S. Iyer wrote (slightly edited):
If I recall correctly, I saw on TV/Internet, Oscar Pistorius being grilled by a seasoned public prosecutor. Pistorius story held up. Pistorius came across to me as a broken man during the trial. Perhaps he was putting on a show - but if so he is a very good actor. I think the prosecution simply failed to prove malicious intent to the required standard of proof to get the murder conviction at that trial (2014). I don't think any deals were done like a plea bargain deal.
I don't know about details about the O.J. Simpson case. Perhaps in that case, OJ came across as a triumphant winner, and that bugged the hell out of people. Here Pistorius was sentenced to five years in jail. It is another matter that he could come out of jail after perhaps less than a year, as per South African law, and be under house arrest or something like that. ... OJ was acquitted of all criminal charges, wasn't he? And there was a theatrical car chase too. That sounded too weird. Whereas Pistorius went by the book after the killing of his girlfriend. He was clearly respectful and subservient to the court during the trial.
I don't know whether OJ flaunted his dream lawyers team and acted as some sort of macho hero who the law could not catch. If so, then that would got some viewers of his trial, mad. ... He lost a civil case later on (the case wiki states that) - perhaps as civil cases have lower standards of proof and so the case could successfully be mounted against him in a civil court.
----
Ravi S. Iyer wrote (slightly edited):
I need to write this too. Hope this won't create any controversy. I don't know whether you folks know how bad the crime situation in some parts of South Africa is. I was told some time back of an incident some years ago, around 2009/2010 perhaps, where an Indian origin young man in South Africa who was driving a Mercedes (or some other luxury type car) not only had his car robbed from him, but was shot in the head at point blank range which was captured by closed circuit camera. The man was in a coma for a few days. The mother asked a local Puttaparthi person to give letters on the matter to Swami... The man died after a few days.
I was told of another case where robbers got into an Indian origin family house in one of the cities of SA, probably Johannesburg. They were armed with guns. The robbers joked about getting rid of the Indians as there were too many Indians in SA or something like that, in front of the family living there. The mother was terrified and asked for permission to go to the prayer room to pray to Baba, after which she said they could do whatever they wanted. They let her go to the prayer room and pray. When she came out of the prayer room, the robbers had gone without killing anybody in the family.
Horrendous stories. It is quite a scary life for some Indian origin families living in South Africa, according to these stories conveyed to me by a friend who has lots of friends in South Africa.
It is in this context that the trigger-happy kind of behaviour of Pistorius has to be viewed. I don't think most places in India or USA face such problems of regular and rather horrendous crime as some cities in South Africa do. Perhaps both the judge's initial verdict and the President's pardon has to be viewed in this context of horrendous and rather common violent crime in cities of South Africa.
----
Sai Das wrote (edited):
All defendants like these are instructed to present themselves as remorseful as they can but not to engage the jury in any way. Some are better actors than others; OJ was an actor too. He was convicted in civil court which really proved his guilt for the most part. Obviously, just because one isn't convicted in a (case) doesn't mean innocence.
----
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
Sai Das. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Oscar_Pistorius, "There was no jury, the jury system in South Africa being abolished during apartheid." In India too, there is no jury. It is the judge who decides on guilt or innocence.
----
[In response to a comment about a bitter fallout between Pistorius and his girlfriend, and a jealous streak in Pistorius,]
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:--name-snipped--, I recall how the prosecution side in the 2014 trial showed that his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, was worried about how Pistorius would get angry at her, and that she believed he was jealous and possessive. From the wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Oscar_Pistorius:
On 24 March, the court heard testimony about messages sent on iPhones between Pistorius and Steenkamp using WhatsApp. Ninety percent of them were described as loving and normal, but there were several from Steenkamp accusing Pistorius of jealousy and possessiveness. In one of them, sent less than three weeks before her killing, Steenkamp told Pistorius "I'm scared of you sometimes, of how you snap at me", and described his behaviour as "nasty".
...
The court's verdict, which was arrived at unanimously by the judge and her two assessors, was delivered by Judge Masipa over two days, with the formal verdict delivered on 12 September 2014. On 11 September Judge Masipa dismissed much of the state's circumstantial evidence, while also describing Pistorius as a "very poor witness". Judge Masipa said the state had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Pistorius was guilty of premeditated murder and also ruled out dolus eventualis, i.e. common murder, accepting that "he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility, that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased as he thought she was in the bedroom". However, Judge Masipa said culpable homicide was a competent verdict, i.e. a lesser offence that is a possible alternative verdict. She said a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have "foreseen the possibility that if he fired four shots whoever was behind the toilet [door] might be struck and die as a result". She said Pistorius "failed to take any steps to avoid the death", "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and his actions were clearly negligent. On 12 September Judge Masipa found Pistorius not guilty of murder but guilty of the culpable homicide of Steenkamp and guilty of reckless endangerment with a firearm at a restaurant in a separate incident. He was found not guilty of the charges relating to discharging a firearm through the sunroof of a car and illegal possession of ammunition.
-- end wiki extracts ---
Ravi: I find the above extracts to reflect my impression when I was following the case then (on live TV - CNN International was broadcasting it live, and on the Internet).
It was a possibility that Pistorius was furious with Steenkamp and created a scenario where he could kill her and claim it to be an accident. But it was only a possiblity. For the possibility to be viewed as very probable, there would have to be some supporting evidence. E.g. if Pistorius had physically abused her in the past and threatened in a fit of rage to kill her. That was not shown/demonstrated in this court case. I don't think there was even an allegation of physical abuse by Pistorius against Steenkamp and/or a threat to kill her in a fit of rage. Had that been there, perhaps the case would have got viewed more negatively against Pistorius.
Now we don't know what really happened. But I don't think it can be presumed that Pistorius planned this killing due to jealousy and fury against Steenkamp, without strong evidence or psychological profile of him that fit such a case. The psychological profile provided by a psychologist (a defense witness) did not paint such a picture. I don't think the prosecution put up an alternative psychological profile (perhaps they could not get any psychologist giving a negative rage-killer profile of Pistorius).
And I don't think his celeb status mattered in the judgement in 2014.
I did not follow the later appeal to Supreme court which held him guilty of murder (thus disagreeing with the 2014 verdict). I don't have the time to read up on it. Similarly, I don't have the time to read up on why President Jacob Zuma decided to pardon him.
----
[The commenter wrote, "Ravi S. Iyer wonderful point and Good research done. I have nothing more to add".]
[I thank Wikipedia and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extracts from their website on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
Please go online and see petition to remove judge Masipa from the bench following on her sentencing Oscar Pistorius
ReplyDelete@Justice, I am afraid I am squeezed for time now. May I request you to share info. (like petition text, if that's permissible) and/or provide links on the matter for readers? Thanks for your comment.
Delete