Pistorius trial

[Ella]

Well, it would get in the way of his running career, wouldn't it :sman:?

[rosy]

He only has to serve a sixth of the sentence before he can apply for "correctional supervision" which seems to be like a home detention/probation order. It's not much for taking somebody's life.

[Tabitha]

That's ridiculous, it's not like he's been in custody up until now.

I completely agree with you, smal.

[Mrs Danvers]

How heartbreaking for Reeva's family. If it were me, I couldn't help but think that her life was intrinsically worth less than his.

[Pippedydeadeye]

I know the cases are not the same at all, but I do think it will be interesting to see what Shrien Dewani gets if found guilty.

[MoFo]

How heartbreaking for Reeva's family. If it were me, I couldn't help but think that her life was intrinsically worth less than his.

Yup.

And eventual house arrest in a pretty shmancypants house doesn't seem like too hard a deal.

Does this link work? I disagree with it anyway
http://gu.com/p/42j2g" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Dáire]

They're two different cases, though. There's no suggestion Shrien thought he was organising a hit on a burglar. It's been hard to prove Pistorius' intentions, but the Dewani case is throwing up plenty of prosecution and very little defence beyond "Um... he says he didn't." He's looking at a lengthy sentence, as a manslaughter charge isn't likely.

[Pippedydeadeye]

I did say they're two different cases. I still think international athletic megastar is always going to get a lighter sentence no matter what.

[Dáire]

I wonder if it could be argued that Dewani's lifestyle could count against him too? Megastar automatically gets lighter sentence, bloke who blows his money on rent boys and decrys his marriage as a sham doesn't cut a sympathetic figure. Hiding from justice with possibly feigned mental illness probably doesn't help either.

There's probably a whole science of appearing appealing to a jury.

[Livilla]

Juries don't do sentencing though (and they don't have them in South Africa anyway).

Pistorius' sentence reflects the nature of his crime - no matter what we may think of the outcome he was not found guilty of any kind of intentional killing. And the likelihood that he would be a repeat offender is failry slim, I would have thought. The sentence seems in line with what I would expect someone who had committed manslaughter in similar circumstances to have received in the UK?

We generally don't lock up people found guilty of manslaughter n similar circumstances here in high security jails for years and years, as it's seen as a bit pointless. And I am guessing there is more pressure on jail space in South Africa than here.

[Kleio]

Is it normal to get a single room in the hospital wing so you don't need much contact with the other inmates though?

[Livilla]

It can be, it depends on the circumstances. His disability would mean he is considered a vulnerable prisoner in the UK, and thus potentially treated differently to the rank and file. Plus, his celebrity status would put him at a higher risk of harassment and possibly attack than an unknown person. The prison owes their inmates a duty of care to keep them safe, and sometimes it is easier to do that by isolating them. This Daily Mail story (sorry) points out that Rolf Harris and other well-known prisoners didn't spent time at Wandsworth, a "normal" prison, but were taken to a specialised one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tment.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lily]

I can understand that. He's been found not guilty of murder, so he won't be sentenced as a murderer. Putting it that way a 5 year sentence seems pretty just.

[Pippedydeadeye]

That does make sense when you put it that way. I'm sure few people find prison a pleasant experience, and I imagine a single day of it is awful enough for many.

[Kleio]

I hadn't even considered his disability. Taking that I to consideration I can see why that's being done.

[rosy]

June Steenkamp's book will state that Reeva took two mobiles into the loo with her. I don't remember this point being brought up at the trial (though I didn't follow all of it), but to me that seems very damning. One phone - habit, to light the way etc, but two phones? I can't think of an explanation that doesn't involve her trying to escape from something that was frightening her.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29777703" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[nick]

I've though that Pistorius was guilty from the off, and nothing I've watched or read has altered that opinion. He's got away with it because of who he is and the legal help he's been able to hire. If he had been Joe Soap from Stellenbosch he would have gone down for murder.

[rosy]

Money talks, client walks? I can't disagree.

[Livilla]

I suspect the somewhat ramshackle nature of the South African police and their criminal investigation had rather more to do with it than Pistorius' status. Apart from all their problems in gathering evidence and at the crime scene, he was acquitted of one of the firearms charges against him because the police and prosecutors got the date of the alleged event wrong when they charged him, for Pete's sake! And no-one should be convicted on the basis of unsound and faulty evidence.

[Lily]

2 phones? Why would she take 2 to the loo? I can't stop it ryming but it still doesn't make sense.