Pistorius case not a matter of 'an eye for an eye' - How Judge Masipa reached her verdict

OscarPistorius

Found not guilty of the "wilful and intentional murder" of Ms Steenkamp, Pistorius was sentenced on Tuesday after a trial which lasted over seven months.

Judge Thokozile Masipa delivered her verdict at 10.33 local time (09.33 BST), after an hour of pointedly describing her decision-making process.

Sentencing began with a confident assertion from Judge Masipa: "It needs to be emphasised that, although I'm sitting with two assessors, the decision is mine and mine alone."

A key argument in last week's closing statements had been the capability of a South African prison to house an inmate with disabilities like those of Pistorius - a double-amputee.

Annette Vergeer - a probation officer called by Pistorius' defence - warned the athlete was at risk of being assaulted, but Judge Masipa gave a withering assessment of those claims.

"Her evidence was slapdash, disappointing and had a negative impact on her credibility as a witness," Judge Masipa said. 

"I found her evidence perfunctory and unhelpful, something quite disturbing given her 27 years of experience."

And it began to become apparent a prison sentence would be delivered as Judge Masipa discussed the subsequent evidence given by acting national commissioner of correctional services Zach Modise.

She said: "Mr Modise was a candid and willing witness who wanted to help the court.

"He testified that prisons were not perfect but were progressing and professional. I have no issue in accepting his evidence as true and reliable.

"If inmates felt that they were not being treated fairly they would have the right to approach the court, and many inmates have done so. 

"If the accused were to do so there is nothing to suggest he would be treated any differently. 

"I have no reason to believe that the accused would present the department [of correctional services] with an insurmountable challenge."

Judge Masipa also highlighted the fine line she had to tread in delivering her sentence, with several legal and social factors to contend with.

"The general public may not know the difference between retribution and vengeance, a very important distinction," she explained.

"Fortunately, regardless of the understanding among the public, South Africa has a constitution which protects everyone, including those who transgress the laws.

"As a country we have long passed on from the era of an eye for an eye to an era of balancing all the relevant factors. Retribution is not the same as vengeance.

"It would be a sad day for this country if the impression was given that there was one rule for the poor and disadvantaged and another for the rich and famous."

After claiming a too short sentence could "cause the public to lose confidence in the justice system and they might be tempted to take the law into their own hands" and conceding a punishment too heavy might "break the accused and could end up doing the opposite of what the punishment set out to do, make the accused a better member of society", Masipa asked Pistorius to stand and delivered her verdict.

"The following is what I consider to be a sentence that is fair and just both to society and to the accused: Count One - culpable homicide, the sentence imposed is a maximum imprisonment of five years."

Author(s)