Paralympics gold medallist Oscar Pistorius was sentenced on Tuesday to a maximum of five years in prison for shooting and killing girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in an act of “culpable homicide”, which in Britain roughly translates to ‘manslaughter’.
The jail term, which was significantly shorter than the ten years imprisonment called for by the prosecution, could, under South African law, mean Pistorius spends one sixth, or as little as ten months of his sentence actually behind bars.
On social media, response to the sentence, as it was to the original verdict, has on balance been surprise and outrage. Typical of the comments online were those of @deboo, who remarked on Twitter: “it’s almost as if women’s lives don’t matter”, while Louis Tan avowed: “If [judges] won’t do their job let public justice be the call of the day in prison or outside prison”.
Barry and June Steenkamp, the victim’s parents, reacted more positively. Speaking outside the Pretoria High Court, Barry Steenkamp said “we are satisfied”, while Reeva’s mother expressed relief and said “I’m just glad it’s over.”
Both grieving parents seemed content that their daughter’s killer will spend at least some time behind bars, but denied justice had been done. There had been speculation prior to sentencing that Pistorius might be handed a community sentence. Speaking on ITV Breakfast, June Steenkamp insisted she and her family were not seeking revenge and, while she had forgiven Pistorius “months ago”, he needed to know he did something wrong.
Pistorius, who was known as the “Blade Runner” because of the prosthetic limbs he used to compete, was taken away from the courtroom in a fortified police van an hour after shaking hands with some family members and well-wishers and handing what appeared to be his wristwatch to his uncle on his way down to the court cells.
The 27-year-old began his sentence behind the walls of Pretoria’s notorious Kgosi Mampuru II prison. The facility, which houses some 7,000 inmates, has in the recent past had problems with violence and overcrowding. It was once notorious for the brutality shown to political prisoners during the apartheid era.
The International Paralympics Committee (IPC) said on Tuesday that Pistorius would not be allowed to run at IPC events even if his prison sentence was cut short and he served the rest of the term under house arrest, meaning he could not compete in a Paralympics until Tokyo 2020.
The point may be moot, since early soundbites from the Pistorius camp suggest he will never compete again. In the cold light of day, however, running was how he made his living, and there is no doubt that whatever wealth he has accumulated will have been severely depleted in defending the protracted court action.
While the Steenkamp family’s lawyer, Dup De Bruyn, is already on record as saying Judge Thokozile Masipa had given “the right sentence”, several of his peers disagree.
Lovell Fernandez, a Cape Town-based legal expert, believes there had been inadequate proof that Pistorius believed there was a genuine threat. “There must be a threat before one can rely on self-defence,” Fernandez told the DPA news agency. “But how does one know there is a threat if the toilet door is closed?”
“Masipa has lowered the threshold for acting in self-defence, which can be very dangerous” he added.
The vast majority of the legal fraternity who keenly followed the high-profile trial agree that the State failed to make a compelling case, but they are nonetheless adamant that the prosecution satisfied the legal requirements for a conviction of second-degree murder, or murder dolus eventualis.
“Our law is very clear on the matter,” explains prominent criminal lawyer Ulrich Roux of BDK Attorneys. “When the test of dolus eventualis is applied, the question that is asked is whether the accused could have foreseen the possibility that his actions would have resulted in death, yet was reckless to that possibility when he proceeded to shoot.”
“The answer has to be ‘no’,” Judge Masipa ruled.
But if Pistorius didn’t foresee death as a possible consequence, then what did he foresee? The athlete is a competent gun user and was shooting from a sophisticated pistol loaded with “black talon” bullets, which are designed to have a maximum impact.
This wasn’t a novice gun user who picked up a gun for the first time and shot wildly in a state of panic. The Paralympian focused his aim on a narrow toilet door behind which was lurking a person, and then pumped the bullets into it in quick succession.
“I have yet to meet a lawyer or legal expert who doesn’t see it that way,” Roux adds. “From the evidence, it is clear that Pistorius knew there was a real possibility that he would kill whoever was behind that door. It’s a form of indirect intention, and this is murder dolus eventualis.”
After the sentencing, the African National Congress Women’s League (ANCWL) remarked via Twitter that it too was unhappy with the culpable homicide verdict delivered in September, but would have been somewhat appeased by a maximum 15-year jail term for the offence.
Far from leaving no clues as to which way she would go, the judge left, if anything, too many clues, which just as effectively confounded predictions. She raised and then dashed the hopes of those hoping for a non-custodial sentence, then seemed to intentionally inflict similar torture on those that would just as soon have Pistorius fry for what he did.
Ultimately, in her hour-long ruling, Judge Masipa said she had striven for a prison sentence that was neither too light nor too severe. “I am of the view that a non-custodial sentence would send a wrong message to the community,” she told the court. “On the other hand, a long sentence would not be appropriate either, as it would lack the element of mercy.”
The judge said house arrest and community service – proposed by two defence witnesses in mitigation – would not be appropriate for Pistorius, who had been guilty of “gross negligence”. She said: “Using a lethal weapon, a loaded firearm, the accused fired not one, but four shots into the door. The toilet was a small cubicle and there was no room for escape for the person behind the door.”
Judge Masipa said she had no reason to believe that South Africa’s prisons would not be able to cater for the needs of a disabled person. “Yes, the accused is vulnerable, but he also has excellent coping skills.”
Perhaps anticipating criticism that she has been too lenient on Pistorius because of his celebrity, the judge noted: “It would be a sad day for this country if an impression was created that there is one law for the poor and disadvantaged and another for the rich and famous.”
She also said pointedly: “Society cannot always get what they want. Courts do not exist for a popularity contest but only to dispense justice … The general public may not even know the difference between punishment and vengeance.”
Pistorius was also handed a three-year suspended jail term for firearms offences. In response to a prosecution request to have the athlete’s gun privileges revoked, his defence lawyer told the court that “Mr Pistorius never wishes to own another gun.”
While Pistorius does not, it seems, intend to appeal his sentence, and the Steenkamp family have expressed their satisfaction with the outcome, South Africa’s national prosecuting authority now has two weeks to decide whether to appeal against the verdict or the sentence.
A spokesman, Nathi Mncube, said: “We have stated that we were disappointed with the judgment but we take solace in fact that Pistorius will serve time in jail.”
The simple fact and supreme irony is that Oscar Pistorius has dodged a metaphorical bullet, having made sure Reeva Steenkamp had zero chance of dodging his lethal ones.
