The Pistorius problem

So Mr. Pistorius gets leniency from the judge and sentenced to five years for manslaughter. He may do a year in house arrest.Wow...just wow.http://www.aol.com/...ts-serving-5-year-prison-term/20981655

Pretty standard sentence for culpable homicide: Mapipa vs The State. Mapipa vs The State, The State vs Nesane.

He blew her shit away.
A reasonable person would of known firing into the door of the bathroom would kill the person and he failed to take steps to prevent that.....O'raly??How about he knew what he was doing when he grabbed his pistol.

So did MMBENGWA ALFRED NESANE, 8 years. Standard sentence.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Well my comment was meant to indicate I think it was to light.You state it is standard for this crime.I still think it is to light. So there we are.Do you think the punishment fits the crime in this case?

I think the question is very interesting and can have many answers.From your initial remarks, I would guess that you think he should have been convicted of something for which the culpability is higher. That's my own opinion.But the conviction was for something like negligent homicide. Johannes Mehserle, who shot Oscar Grant while he was handcuffed, was convicted of something similar because the jury believed that he meant to taser Oscar. Mehserle received a two year sentence. So there is nothing all that surprising about the length of the sentence.Whether or not you think a 5-8 year sentence is appropriate for such a thing might largely depend on deeply held and personal views of crime and punishment. I've seldom seen people change those views during a discussion. I have seen people change their mind when their own loved ones are involved.I think the sentence is appropriate based on what he was convicted for. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And my comment was meant indicate that any leniency was not the judge's, who acted in accordance with standard sentencing guidelines as far as I can tell. You might want to argue that South African legal system is too lenient. If he had sentenced for 8 years or more, an appeal is likely to succeed, which would be a waste of everyone's time and money. Well, hardly a trivial question. I think its reasonable. Higher sentences than that really should be reserved for people whose negligence has resulted in convictions previously, who try and hide evidence, the body (higher sentencing for dismembering the corpse), flee the scene, blame others, kill or injure multiple people, with full sight of the victim and so on while keeping the sentencing less than murder.

Hi NoNukes, Perhaps, I just find it hard to believe he did not mean to kill her while he was firing into the door of that bathroom. I believe he is guilty of murder. He was lucky South Africa has a lenient judicial system in cases such as these. He is lucky he has the means for such a robust defense. He is lucky he did not commit this crime in Tejas.

I appreciate your insight. He took the life of a young beautiful woman and I believe he did it on purpose. The prosecution did not prove their case and he is getting a slap on the wrist imo.That said it is nothing compared to the OJ trial of which he was acquitted.Edited by 1.61803, : structure.Edited by 1.61803, : spelling

My forecast was eight years. But I didn't know about the one sixth rule, so on balance I think it is on the lenient side. But also - and absolutely crucially - I was not there to hear the arguments.But overall, I was extremely impressed by the entire process - utterly impossible for a black woman judge to condemn a white man of such celebrity 20 years ago - and to do it in such a thoughtful, balanced and considered way is something the world should give thanks for.The actual term of imprisonment doesn't really matter much, he's finacialy broken, has lost his livelihood, his friens and good name . Plus he's got to live with this for the rest of his life.cf. OJ

I was talking about the sentencing for the crimes he was found guilty of.If you think someone should be sentenced based on crimes they weren't found guilty of that's a problem. If it cannot be proved you committed a crime, you are not guilty. That's a pretty good system, I feel. You want to try and argue otherwise?Otherwise, your problem is not with the sentencing but with the conviction.Incidentally - would it have been as serious a crime if the victim was an ugly young man? Even so, I'm sure you'd agree that not sentencing someone who was not convicted is the way to go, right?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Yes, legally. However one can still be still be guilty and be acquitted right? I thought you'd resist this. Yes.

Not bad, and I doubt they would have appealed, but there might have been grounds to. In the State vs Nesane, the perpetrator gained entry to the victim's house - his former partner who had intimated he was an abusive husband - and confronted her about her social crimes. The situation escalated to violence at which point Nesane picked up a gun, during the events that followed his wife was shot. He had clear sight of her and had intended to have an angry confrontation. He was sentenced to 45 years for murder, but on appeal it was reduced to 8 years for culpable homicide.I think that there were probably more mitigating factors and less aggravating factors in Pistorius' case than Nesane's. True, but then there's Mike Tyson. A sport's cheat who won maybe $300million and was convicted of rape and served 3 years of 6. He lost most of it, but to call him financially broken is probably not quite accurate. Of course, many thought him innocent, so maybe that helped post-prison. Pistorius has a reasonable chance of doing OK for himself after his sentence, I think - much more than OJ did.

I'll take that as confirmation that your issue is with the conviction, not with the sentencing that followed.

While I think the 'did on purpose' might be true, the prosecution was not able to convince the jury that is so. He managed to convince them of the story he was disoriented from waking up and meds.