Mind-boggling questions linger
THE crucial question that may determine Oscar Pistorius’s fate in his murder trial will be whether or not his testimony to court can be believed.
Pistorius, 27, shot girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, 29, through a toilet door in his Pretoria home last year.
The defence argued that Pistorius had a terrible fear of crime and that his disability increases his vulnerability.
The state countered this, by arguing that not only was the area Pistorius lived in not crime-ridden, but his general behaviour was not consistent with someone with an overwhelming fear of crime.
Did police tamper with the crime scene?The defence argued that the crime scene photographs could not be trusted as police moved items at the scene, which the state has denied.
Much of Nel’s cross-examination of Pistorius relied on these photos in a bid to show the athlete was lying.
Masipa must decide whether there is evidence of tampering and, if so, whether it is material enough to influence her judgment.
If Masipa finds Pistorius guilty of murder with premeditation, he is likely to be sentenced to life in prison in terms of the prescribed sentence according to the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1997.
Masipa must impose this sentence unless she believes there are “substantial and compelling circumstances” that justify a lesser sentence – a finding not lightly made by courts.
The prescribed minimum sentence for murder with no premeditation, and in the case of a first offender like Pistorius, is 15 years in prison.
If Masipa finds Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide rather than murder, the sentence is entirely within her discretion because no minimum sentence is prescribed. If Pistorius be found guilty of any of the firearms and ammunition possession charges, Masipa may sentence him, according to the Firearms Control Act, to a fine or imprisonment.
The maximum prison terms she may impose, according to the act, are five years for each of the two charges of discharging a firearm in a public place and 15 years for the charge of possessing ammunition without a licence.
Judge set to decide Oscar’s fate today
THE crucial question that may determine Oscar Pistorius’s fate in his murder trial will be whether or not his testimony to court can be believed.
Pistorius, 27, shot girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, 29, through a toilet door in his Pretoria home last year.
The defence argued that Pistorius had a terrible fear of crime and that his disability increases his vulnerability.
The state countered this, by arguing that not only was the area Pistorius lived in not crime-ridden, but his general behaviour was not consistent with someone with an overwhelming fear of crime.
The defence argued that the crime scene photographs could not be trusted as police moved items at the scene, which the state has denied.
Much of Nel’s cross-examination of Pistorius relied on these photos in a bid to show the athlete was lying.
Masipa must decide whether there is evidence of tampering and, if so, whether it is material enough to influence her judgment.
If Masipa finds Pistorius guilty of murder with premeditation, he is likely to be sentenced to life in prison in terms of the prescribed sentence according to the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1997.
Masipa must impose this sentence unless she believes there are “substantial and compelling circumstances” that justify a lesser sentence – a finding not lightly made by courts.
The prescribed minimum sentence for murder with no premeditation, and in the case of a first offender like Pistorius, is 15 years in prison.
If Masipa finds Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide rather than murder, the sentence is entirely within her discretion because no minimum sentence is prescribed. If Pistorius be found guilty of any of the firearms and ammunition possession charges, Masipa may sentence him, according to the Firearms Control Act, to a fine or imprisonment.
The maximum prison terms she may impose, according to the act, are five years for each of the two charges of discharging a firearm in a public place and 15 years for the charge of possessing ammunition without a licence.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos