Judge
Thokozile Masipa's decision to acquit Pistorius of murder has left many in
South Africa asking that question. Masipa's decision hinged on a little-known
Latin term and a complex section of South African law: "Dolus
eventualis."
The
term means a defendant should be convicted of murder if it's found that they
foresaw a possibility that someone would die as a result of their unlawful
actions, but continued with the actions anyway and the person was killed. In
acquitting the world-famous athlete of murder on Friday, Judge Masipa ruled
that Pistorius did not identify at the time that someone might die before he
shot four times through a door into a small toilet cubicle, killing Reeva
Steenkamp.
Many
South Africans — legal analysts and others — find fault with Masipa's
conclusion. Here's why the judge ruled the way she did:
PREMEDITATED
MURDER
Most
legal analysts praised Masipa's verdict that Pistorius could not be found
guilty of premeditated or pre-planned murder. Masipa called the prosecution's
evidence "circumstantial" and said prosecutors did not show
pre-planning from the double-amputee Olympic runner. Prosecutors presented
evidence from Pistorius' neighbours who testified they heard a woman screaming
from his Pretoria villa in the pre-dawn hours of Feb. 14, 2013. Masipa rejected
that evidence — and with it the prosecution's allegation of a nighttime fight
between the couple — saying those witnesses could not be certain that what they
heard was screams from a woman.
South
African criminal defense lawyer Marius du Toit said Masipa dealt with the
premeditated murder charge "brilliantly."
MURDER
Pistorius'
acquittal on a lesser charge of murder without pre-planning is viewed as the
most contentious. Prosecutors had urged the judge to consider that even if it
was shown that Pistorius believed there was an intruder and not Steenkamp in
the cubicle, he still shot knowing that he could kill the person and without
any justification. In South Africa, you can be found guilty of murder if you
intended to kill one person and another died instead. But Masipa found that
Pistorius — in the moments he fired — did not foresee that someone might die
and therefore had no ultimate intent to kill.
While
prosecutors said they were "disappointed" with the verdict, firearms lawyer
Martin Hood said analysts were questioning Masipa's findings.
"Many
of us feel she has made incorrect factual findings," Hood said. "And
then the application of the law itself seems to have been misunderstood and
possibly misapplied. I think there's a lot of uncertainty as to the correctness
of the judgment."
Many
people questioned how anyone could survive the four bullets shot into the small
toilet cubicle.
CULPABLE
HOMICIDE
In
a fine line between murder and negligent killing, Masipa explained Pistorius
didn't foresee his actions could cause someone to die but a reasonable person
in his position should have. She found that Pistorius was therefore negligent
in Steenkamp's death and guilty of culpable homicide, even though he had no
intent to kill that night.
The
judge said Pistorius' acted "too hastily and with excessive force"
when he grabbed his gun, went to confront a perceived danger and fired four
times.
SENTENCING
Chief
prosecutor Gerrie Nel said it is now "probable" that Pistorius would
go to prison. But the sentence for culpable homicide is left to the judge's
discretion and it could range from no jail time to a maximum of 15 years in
prison. Du Toit, the criminal defense lawyer, said eight to 10 years for
Pistorius would be a severe sentence for this case and would be applicable only
if the judge found he was very negligent. Because there is no minimum sentence,
Pistorius could receive a fine, a suspended sentence and no jail time.
"People
think he got away with murder," Johannesburg resident Veronica Nyathi
said. "There were only two people in the house and he shot Reeva. Most
people want to see him go to jail."
No comments:
Post a Comment