Oscar Pistorius sentence

I was listening to the report on the radio while driving, and thought at first that five years was about right for manslaughter. Then they said he'd have to serve at least ten months of supervised detention!

The report went on to say that as Pistorious has now been banned from taking part in any SA sport for five years, he'd miss the 2016 Olympics - well of course he will, he should be in prison!!!

Shall we get this right Sunseeker. He has indeed to be sentenced to 5 years in prison of which he is likely to serve half (as in this country). He may, under the section he has been sentenced under, be moved to house arrest after 10 months. This was the maximum sentence he could be given.

Think it should have been longer. If it's 5yrs then he should IMHO serve the full 5yrs!

Reeva Steenkamp's family have said that they are satisfied with the outcome and the sentence he has been given. I think that's what matters in this tragic case.

There were previous comments about the lack of a jury system in South Africa, I've done some reading and for interest, "South Africa's legal system is a meld of the customary law system inherited from indigenous African cultures; a civil law Roman-Dutch system from the original Dutch settlers who arrived in the 17th century and a common-law system from the British (adopted during the period of colonisation 1910 - 1961). The Roman-Dutch system is the bedrock, but broadly speaking the law governing criminal acts follow the English model. When SA abandoned the jury system, the jury was replaced by a system of assessors, experts in a particular field under scrutiny in a case.

Gracesgran Like I said out in 10 months. He will be under correctional supervision at home. Not long enough in prison for the manslaughter of a young woman.

Well thankfully Sunseeker, neither you or I were the judge.

As I said you are wrong. He will not be "out" in 10 months; he will be under house arrest. I have just been listening to what house arrest means - I assume you have found this out too. It seems to me that it is no soft option.

Also, I do not think we should be telling other countries how to run their judicial system.

That's really interesting Grannyknot. I was one who wondered how the system worked and if it was as "just" as ours. I have been very impressed with how it worked and the countries own insights into where it may not work as well. In other areas, it seemed to me, especially reading some of the insightful comments about juries we already seen on this thread, that justice may be better served in this way.

gracesgran I also read that the justice system in South Africa has moved to a more restorative approach since the end of apartheid. And also that the judges themselves actually appoint the assessors, they can be experts in a particular area, advocates, magistrates or even legal academics. It is an interesting system.

I feel that it is just.

We watched it live this morning and I got the impression that OP would be eligible for SA's version of parole after 10 months but it's by no means certain that he'll get it.

It does seem a light sentence but then his career is effectively over and I doubt his 'celebrity' status will gain him any favours in prison.

When it came to judging his guilt or innocence Grannyknot(determined of course by the evidence and not what the papers said ) one commentator, a South African lawyer, said that the judge system was better when deciding on the actual guilt or innocence because this was decided on facts alone. Whereas a jury may be better when deciding about "whether a reasonable person" (not sure if that is right but it will be close) would behave in a particular way which, once he was found to be guilty of their equivalent of manslaughter, determined how responsibly he had acted.

Merlotgran it is not parole. If you continued to watch they explained that it really is house arrest. Perhaps we should do more of this as it would save us a lot of money .

To me the Judge seemed to take many things into account and did say that she knew that her judgment would not please everybody.

I think the judgment was fair as did Reeva Steenkamps family.

Some of the commentators in SA suggested that OP may have had a lighter sentence (re all the comments above) but that the general population in SA may not have stood for it and the judge took this into account. This suggests that perhaps the general population 85% thought him guilty of murder.

He should still at least serve the 5 years in prison, if that`s what he was sentenced to, but it wasn`t long enough, even then.

What do you know that the judge that listened to all the evidence, doesn't numberplease?

gracesgran. People will be discussing this and voicing their opinions all over the country and beyond. Why are you jumping on anyone who has an opinion you don't agree with?

I also think he should serve the full 5 years but what do I know

It seems right to me.

I honestly think that justice has been done in this very difficult case. No-one will ever really be able to prove whether he did intend to kill Reeva or not, there is simply no evidence. And if Reeva's family are satisfied with the sentence then that is good enough.

I'm not sure that how her family feel about it can be the sole measure of how a sentence is judged. Punishments are not just about how the victim's family feel but about the message that goes to the wider society about how particular crimes are judged in that society. I also think we are perfectly entitled to pass commenton the judicial systems of other countries

Also, house arrest in his house might be a slightly different experience from
House arrest in a one bedroom flat

BBC news (Sports) reports his psychiatrist as saying it is unlikely that he will ever compete as an athlete again.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/disability-sport/29701616

merlotgran I don't think I did "jump on" anyone. I asked a question.

You say you think he should serve the full five years - I imagine you mean in prison as he will be serving this period of time. He has been given the maximum sentence under South African law and I (just my opinion) do see shades of the Empire when we try and tell a country that has struggled hard to escape the situation we made for them how their judicial system should be run.

It's nothing to do with Empire- I have and will continue to pass comments on judicial systems of a whole range of countries - I had a lot to say about the German system that allowed the doctor who caused the death of a man in the UK whilst he was working over here to escape facing justice in our courts.

I think the judge got it right.