Oscar Pistorius: The Sentence

Status
Not open for further replies.
[Edit]
One can be and is in contempt of court by the conduct not the implications.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Paul Hjul said:
One can be and is in contempt of court by the conduct not the implications.
Click to expand...

One cannot be in contempt of court if one doesn't do anything that can be construed as disruptive or obstructive. Not having anything to do with the case at all and not even being in the court would qualify. i.e Sitting at home or work passing armchair judgements and aspersions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vergeer (aka Vergewe) said something yesterday about community service, something to the effect that cleaning is not something would like to do, therefore it is a punishment (referring to the suggested cleaning duty as part of community service). I lolled.

In my mind there is no excuse whatsoever for firing 4 times through a closed door into a confined space. This is completely contrary to the law regarding lethal force that is absolutely drilled into anyone applying for a firearm licence.

If he serves no jail time at all it will be a joke and a slap in the face of the Steenkamps.
 
Nick333 said:
One cannot be in contempt of court if one doesn't do anything that can be construed as disruptive or obstructive. Not having anything to do with the case at all and not even being in the court would qualify. i.e Sitting at home or work passing armchair judgements and aspersions.
Click to expand...
Its not factual it is an unfounded spurious remark that serves no purpose other than to impugn the dignity of the court. Under our law - and the law of almost all civilized nations - your conduct is tantamount to contempt of court, whether such contempt is actionable is entirely irrelevant to whether it is contempt
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Diplos said:
Vergeer (aka Vergewe) said something yesterday about community service, something to the effect that cleaning is not something would like to do, therefore it is a punishment (referring to the suggested cleaning duty as part of community service). I lolled.

In my mind there is no excuse whatsoever for firing 4 times through a closed door into a confined space. This is completely contrary to the law regarding lethal force that is absolutely drilled into anyone applying for a firearm licence.

If he serves no jail time at all it will be a joke and a slap in the face of the Steenkamps.
Click to expand...
Community service is a farce
 
marine1 said:
I swear people who go on and on just because they love either the sound of their voices or they love to show how educated they are ..........it's bloody annoying ffs
Click to expand...

They are full of it. That's why they are on my ignore list.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
But is it even relevant in terms of sentencing? Are you liable to an aggravated sentence because the person you killed was 'useful' to society?

Should someone that killed a hobo get a lesser sentence than someone who killed a supermodel that carries around paralysed poodles?
Click to expand...
Yes. Yes. No.

Broadly, there are two things the judge considers when deciding on a sentence: 1. the nature/gravity of act itself read with the culpability of the accused, and 2. the community's interests, which encompasses also the families.

Not only the victim has been harmed, but also the community. And the nature and extent of that harm depends also (but not exclusively) on the character, work, stature, office, virtue, and social standing, etc of both the accused and the victim.

The appropriateness of such considerations is immediately evident if you imagine that the victim was say a world expert in immunology and HIV-AIDS research, or say the Public Protector - the harm and loss to the community from her wrongful killing is greater than the loss of say a terminally ill hobo.

This is not saying that the one human life is worth more than the other, or that the accused is more or less guilty because of his status or the victim's standing (it is not, and guilt has already been decided) - it is simply recognising for the purposes of sentence that the community is more injured by the loss of one than of the other. (This example is only to establish the principle that a person's character and social contribution is not utterly irrelevant when considering sentence (punishment and rehabilitation of the accused, and protection of the community).

Moreover, the social standing and character of the accused is also relevant when considering sentence (in contradistinction to guilt). Society (and thus the court) rightly recognises that even when two acts are identical in external action and consequence, the culpa of the perpetrator is relevant when considering sentence. Was the perpetrator an otherwise honest and upstanding member of the community? Does he show remorse for his wrongful act? Does he pose an ongoing danger to society? It is quite possible (and just) that the same act by two different people result in different sentences.

The first element has largely been addressed in the proceedings ante decisis, and there is no real new evidence to be led.

It is therefore only right and proper that both the Prosecution (arguing for the interests of the community) and the Defence (arguing for the character and good standing of the Accused) lay out every possible argument before the court, so that the most just sentence can be imposed.

One of the great strengths of our justice system is that it is not (yet) a simple algorithmic process, but a prudential one. Everything that is relevant should be considered and carefully weighed. And that includes the character of the Accused, the value to society of the victim, and the harm that society has suffered from this wrongful act. It is a small but important part of the process of arriving at an appropriate sentence. The guilt is already decided.

That is why we are hearing about St Oscar and St Reeva.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
Yes. Yes. No.

Broadly, there are two things the judge considers when deciding on a sentence: 1. the nature/gravity of act itself read with the culpability of the accused, and 2. the community's interests, which encompasses also the families.

Not only the victim has been harmed, but also the community. And the nature and extent of that harm depends also (but not exclusively) on the character, work, stature, office, virtue, and social standing, etc of both the accused and the victim.

The appropriateness of such considerations is immediately evident if you imagine that the victim was say a world expert in immunology and HIV-AIDS research, or say the Public Protector - the harm and loss to the community from her wrongful killing is greater than the loss of say a terminally ill hobo.

This is not saying that the one human life is worth more than the other, or that the accused is more or less guilty because of his status or the victim's standing (it is not, and guilt has already been decided) - it is simply recognising for the purposes of sentence that the community is more injured by the loss of one than of the other. (This example is only to establish the principle that a person's character and social contribution is not utterly irrelevant when considering sentence (punishment and rehabilitation of the accused, and protection of the community).

Moreover, the social standing and character of the accused is also relevant when considering sentence (in contradistinction to guilt). Society (and thus the court) rightly recognises that even when two acts are identical in external action and consequence, the culpa of the perpetrator is relevant when considering sentence. Was the perpetrator an otherwise honest and upstanding member of the community? Does he show remorse for his wrongful act? Does he pose an ongoing danger to society? It is quite possible (and just) that the same act by two different people result in different sentences.

The first element has largely been addressed in the proceedings ante decisis, and there is no real new evidence to be led.

It is therefore only right and proper that both the Prosecution (arguing for the interests of the community) and the Defence (arguing for the character and good standing of the Accused) lay out every possible argument before the court, so that the most just sentence can be imposed.

One of the great strengths of our justice system is that it is not (yet) a simple algorithmic process, but a prudential one. Everything that is relevant should be considered and carefully weighed. And that includes the character of the Accused, the value to society of the victim, and the harm that society has suffered from this wrongful act. It is a small but important part of the process of arriving at an appropriate sentence. The guilt is already decided.

That is why we are hearing about St Oscar and St Reeva.
Click to expand...

That's a contradiction. If someone's liable to a harsher sentence for killing someone useful, then someone's automatically liable for a less harsh sentence if the person is not deemed as useful.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
That's a contradiction. If someone's liable to a harsher sentence for killing someone useful, then someone's automatically liable for a less harsh sentence if the person is not deemed as useful.
Click to expand...

Now that would be a nasty slope to start down...
 
Paul Hjul said:
[Edit]
One can be and is in contempt of court by the conduct not the implications.
Click to expand...
Nope. This has already been legally fought (go read up). Contempt of court only comes if the remarks genuinely damaging, otherwise freedom of speech wins.

A comment on a public forum (made in jest I might add, as you can tell from the follow up quote I provided) would never be illegal.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
That's a contradiction. If someone's liable to a harsher sentence for killing someone useful, then someone's automatically liable for a less harsh sentence if the person is not deemed as useful.
Click to expand...
No contradiction, though that's a very crude way of putting it, because the court never makes a determination of the victim's 'usefulness' (your term is reductionist and utilitarian, which is alien in this context). However, justice also requires that society, in assessing the degree of loss it suffered and thus the degree of punishment due the perpetrator to restore/balance the scales of justice, cannot ignore whether the victim was the President, say, or a 3-month old child, for example.

The same consideration is rightly applied in respect of the accused, btw.

Let's take two murders. A kills B, and Y kills Z.

Let's assume that A and Y (the perps) wrongfully act identically and in identical circumstances, with equal dolus.
Let us further assume that B and Z (the victims) are of equal "use" (hate your term in this context, but for brevity let's go with it) to society.

The status (ie standing, summary term) of the perps can be highly relevant in determining the appropriate sentence. For example, Perp A might be the Chief of Police, and so his social standing might well be an aggravating factor.

This is not easy to briefly summarise. These considerations fill volumes and exercise the brightest of legal minds.
 
Last edited:
I actually find it very scary, that people like Anette Vergeer, act as a probation officer and make recommendations to the court about how criminals should be detained.

She works with cases on a day to day basis, but has absolutely no clue about the prison system or has an understanding of the correctional services act. I am wondering if her "lack" of knowledge is due to her consulting for the defense or if she is generally clueless.

And, oh the double-standard - remember the Krugersdorp sword killing (http://www.witness.co.za/index.php?showcontent&global[_id]=27404):
Earlier, social worker Annette Vergeer presented a pyscho-social report on Harmse.

She recommended Harmse be placed in a youth prison like Leeukop, where besides the element of punishment, he could also receive both individual and group therapy and counselling, as well as be able to further his studies.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MagicDude4Eva said:
I actually find it very scary, that people like Anette Vergeer, act as a probation officer and make recommendations to the court about how criminals should be detained.

She works with cases on a day to day basis, but has absolutely no clue about the prison system or has an understanding of the correctional services act. I am wondering if her "lack" of knowledge is due to her consulting for the defense or if she is generally clueless.
Click to expand...
What gets me is that she is a full time State employee but has permission to practice privately, as in this case.

Surely there is a conflict of interest?

Surely there is unauthorised use of State property, albeit intellectual property?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X