pistorius

donut

donut

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,088
Edit My Images
No
pistorius gets a slap on the wrist and sent to bed with no supper.

culpable homicide five years

three years suspended for discharging the firearm
 
very light sentence.
 
So does that mean he spends 5 - 3 = 2 years locked up?

He'll need protection! A South African jail won't be much fun.
 
no it means he gets up to 5 years inside for the cuplable homicide and 3 yrs suspended for the firearms. Basically if he screws up in the next however long, he get s those 3 as well. Could be consecutive, could be concurrent - however given unlikely to have access to a gun in the next few years, might as well not bother.
 
RedRobin said:
So does that mean he spends 5 - 3 = 2 years locked up?

He'll need protection! A South African jail won't be much fun.
Click to expand...

LBC news reporting that SA system will mean he gets out in 10 months.
 
Ah well, at least he got some time. Didn't look like he was going to get jailed so it's a wee bonus. Not enough for taking a life but such are the wheels of justice. Quite disgraceful really imo.
 
TBH, five years is a greater sentence than I thought he would receive, but IMO for him to be free under a supervision order (possibly) after 10 months would be ludicrous.
 
I was convinced at one point of the judges build up he was going to get a none custodial sentence......5 years is a lot more than I expected - but who knows what he will actually serve.
 
Had the court found him Not Guilty then fair enough if he had walked out a free man - The case was heard in great detail. However, having been found Guilty, for him to get out after only 10 months is a travesty of justice! And as such, I hope he does suffer in jail.

The victim's (I forget her name) parents appear to have been milking the whole case for as much money as they could get from the very beginning - I wonder what they think about the sentence.
 
RedRobin said:
Had the court found him Not Guilty then fair enough if he had walked out a free man - The case was heard in great detail. However, having been found Guilty, for him to get out after only 10 months is a travesty of justice! And as such, I hope he does suffer in jail.

The victim's (I forget her name) parents appear to have been milking the whole case for as much money as they could get from the very beginning - I wonder what they think about the sentence.
Click to expand...

Well if he'd have been found not guilty, of course he would have been a free man.
There's no guarantee that he'll be out in 10 months. He was sentenced to 5 years.
The victims name was Reeva Steenkamp. And how have her parents been "milking it"? Their daughter was unlawfully killed. They wanted justice for her.
 
Will he still have his prosthetic legs in prison? If not then the showers and reaching for the soap won't be such perilous task....:exit:

not a pleasant experience for the Steenkamps by any length of the imagination. Same for Anni Dewani' family.
 
viv1969 said:
Well if he'd have been found not guilty, of course he would have been a free man.
Click to expand...

....Indeed. You have completely misunderstood me.

viv1969 said:
There's no guarantee that he'll be out in 10 months. He was sentenced to 5 years.
Click to expand...

....Again you have misunderstood. Perhaps I should have written "IF he gets out after only 10 months...". I assume you have read the earlier posts in this thread making reference to the 10 months possibility.

viv1969 said:
The victims name was Reeva Steenkamp. And how have her parents been "milking it"? Their daughter was unlawfully killed. They wanted justice for her.
Click to expand...

....Book publishing deals before the case was even heard. Had the court found him Not Guilty, then justice would also have been done, although I doubt that her parents would see it that way inspite of their early public statements about how they forgive him!
 
RedRobin said:
....Again you have misunderstood. Perhaps I should have written "IF he gets out after only 10 months...". I assume you have read the earlier posts in this thread making reference to the 10 months possibility.!
Click to expand...

Post 8
Keep up.
 
According to lawyers, the specified sentence does translate to 10 months minimum in jail and the remainder under house arrest.

The Steenkamps have stated that they are satisfied that justice has been done.

The prosecution is considering appealing the sentence.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if I was the Steenkamps I'd class 5 years, most of which under house arrest as justice.
 
It doesn’t “translate” to 10 months in jail.
He will be eligible for straightforward parole after serving one third of his sentence; however, under SA law he MAY, after as little as 10 months, qualify to serve the remainder of the pre-parole custodial part of his sentence under house arrest.
As it stands now, he’s no more guaranteed than anyone else to a) get parole or b) qualify for the supervisory non-custodial programme
He will have to wait and see like anyone else.
 
RedRobin said:
According to lawyers, the specified sentence does translate to 10 months minimum in jail and the remainder under house arrest.
Click to expand...


viv1969 said:
It doesn’t “translate” to 10 months in jail.
He will be eligible for straightforward parole after serving one third of his sentence; however, under SA law he MAY, after as little as 10 months, qualify to serve the remainder of the pre-parole custodial part of his sentence under house arrest.
Click to expand...


....We are saying the same thing. You are simply adding more detail - Thanks :)

 
RedRobin said:



....We are saying the same thing. You are simply adding more detail - Thanks :)
Click to expand...

Well I figured that if one of us was going to make some sense, I might as well be me :thumbs:
 
I think that what's missing here, from the people who seem to think that the sentence is somehow wrong, is knowledge...
The person who has heard ALL of the evidence, read all the reports and decided on the sentence, is the Judge - and nobody here has that level of knowledge.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I think that what's missing here, from the people who seem to think that the sentence is somehow wrong, is knowledge...
The person who has heard ALL of the evidence, read all the reports and decided on the sentence, is the Judge - and nobody here has that level of knowledge.
Click to expand...

Best lock just about every thread then. :rolleyes:
 
Garry Edwards said:
I think that what's missing here, from the people who seem to think that the sentence is somehow wrong, is knowledge...
The person who has heard ALL of the evidence, read all the reports and decided on the sentence, is the Judge - and nobody here has that level of knowledge.
Click to expand...

....I agree. All I have been doing is reporting what the media have been reporting, but we each have a right to our opinions based on those reports even if our level of knowledge is incomplete.... Just as long as we are also prepared to revise our opinions as more information comes to light.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I think that what's missing here, from the people who seem to think that the sentence is somehow wrong, is knowledge...
The person who has heard ALL of the evidence, read all the reports and decided on the sentence, is the Judge - and nobody here has that level of knowledge.
Click to expand...

Yes.... and no.

In her summing up the judge said it's not reasonable to expect 4 shots through a door to cause life threatening injuries (or something to that effect). I find that an unbelievably stupid conclusion.
 
arclight said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...hino-poacher-jailed-for-77-years-9623177.html
Click to expand...


It just shows how ridiculous the Pistorius verdict was.
Part of the article stated:

"the prosecuters argued successfully that Chauke should be convicted for the murder of the accomplice who was killed by rangers, South Africa's SABC News said on its website. The judge rejected Chauke's argument that he was forced into the poaching excursion by his accomplices."

So, in this case the poacher is being prosecuted for murder, for the death of his accomplice who was shot dead by park rangers - unbelievable!!!
 
H2O said:
Yes.... and no.

In her summing up the judge said it's not reasonable to expect 4 shots through a door to cause life threatening injuries (or something to that effect). I find that an unbelievably stupid conclusion.
Click to expand...

Exactly, particularly as Pistorius was using illegal, hollow point ammunition which would cause horrific injuries at that range.
 
now I am not an expert on the prison system, never having been a resident or worked in one, however I imagine a rich white afrikanner in a heavily black dominated south african prison may present a few erm... "challenges" over the next few months, unless he is kept in the hospital wing....

Friend of a friend is currently at her majesty's pleasure (don't know what for) and as mate was saying to me "You've got two choices, give it or have it given to you." I assume this was related to incidences of picking up bars of soap etc...
 
i can't work out why he got such a light sentence ,totally STUMPS ME :exit::help: he won't be in jail for long someone will SPRING HIM :beer:and i hope he does none of this :mooning: in the shower :wave:
 
Mods: Please delete this if necessary.

I was wondering:

1. Substitute the accused by a black South African everyday normal bloke.
2. Substitute the judge with a white judge.
3. Sentence ?
 
the guy should have been convicted of murder, given a life sentence, and stripped of all his medals and completley removed from anything to do with sports.

utterly disgraceful, reevas family must be so upset and frustrated.
 
sx_turbo said:
the guy should have been convicted of murder, given a life sentence, and stripped of all his medals and completley removed from anything to do with sports.

utterly disgraceful, reevas family must be so upset and frustrated.
Click to expand...

Apparently not.
 
andy700 said:
Exactly, particularly as Pistorius was using illegal, hollow point ammunition which would cause horrific injuries at that range.
Click to expand...

IIRC he illegally owned that ammunition but I don't think that is what was loaded in his gun (in fact I don't think it even fit his gun, his defence was he was 'storing it for someone else' corroborated by him being unable to use it)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top