by Rick Stack
It is a rare occasion when both the defendant and the surviving family of a victim agree on the sentence imposed by a judge. That atypical scenario appears to have occurred on Tuesday in a Johannesburg, South Africa courtroom during the sentencing of fallen Olympian Oscar Pistorius. Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa imposed a 5-year prison sentence for “culpable homicide” (analogous to manslaughter in the U.S.) against Pistorius in the killing of his 29-year-old girlfriend and model, Reeva Steenkamp, on Valentine’s night 2013, as well as a 3-year suspended sentence for separate weapons charges. In a blow to the NRA, Pistorius also was declared unfit to possess a gun in the future.
Pistorius had faced a sentence of up to 20 years on the homicide charge alone. Under South African law, Pistorius can apply for parole as early as next August, by which time he will have served 1/6 of his sentence. Immediately after being sentenced, the disabled sprinter was remanded into custody and placed in a private cell of the hospital wing of the notorious apartheid-era prison, Kgosi Mampuru II, in Pretoria.
Pistorius, who bawled and vomited through much of his marathon eight month murder trial, didn’t flinch or break down crying when Judge Masipa announced her sentence. Those histrionics had led the Judge and defense counsel to request a postponement midway through the trial this summer in order to conduct a psychological evaluation of Pistorius. In June, the pair of court-appointed mental health experts concluded that Pistorius was not suffering from a mental illness when he killed his girlfriend by firing four shots at Steenkamp through a closed toiler door and that he was capable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his act.
Judge Masipa had disappointed Steenkamp’s parents last month by acquitting Pistorius of premeditated murder, which would have guaranteed a prison term of 25 years to life. However, she found him guilty of only the culpable murder and weapons charges. Prosecutor Gerrie Nel asked for a 10 year prison sentence for Pistorius. The prosecution’s theory was that Pistorius killed Steenkamp after a Valentine’s Day argument. It portrayed the Olympic athlete as a hothead with a love of guns, an inflated sense of entitlement, and a history of domestic abuse. In contrast, defense attorney Barry Roux asked for house arrest and community service, arguing that the 27-year-old athlete would be preyed on by rapists and targeted for murder if he was jailed.
In “splitting the difference” between the requests of the prosecution and the defense, Judge Masipa struck a balance between mercy and retribution. Prior to imposing her sentence, the Judge criticized Pistorius for having acted with “gross negligence.” Although she accepted Pistorius’ claim that he killed Steenkamp by accident when he fired four times through a bathroom door believing that an intruder had gotten inside his gated Pretoria apartment, she still found it inacceptable. Judge Masipa said, “using a lethal weapon, the accused fired not one but four shots into the door.” Summing up her sentence, Masipa said her decision was “about achieving the right balance — proportionality.” A long sentence would lack mercy, she said, while a more lenient one would “send the wrong message to the community.” She added, “It would be a sad day for this country if an impression was created that there is one law for the poor and disadvantaged and another for the rich and famous.”
The last quote of Judge Masipa strains credulity somewhat, since it’s hard to believe that a poor, black South African accused of similar crimes as Pistorius who could not afford to hire his legal “dream team,” would have received the same sentence. Not surprisingly, on the street outside of the courtroom, some South Africans told reporters that Pistorius should have been jailed for 10, or even, 20 years. The New York Times interviewed minibus taxi driver Johannes Mbatha, who lamented the lenient sentence as evidence that South African society has not yet transformed. “If it was a black man, he never would have received such a light sentence,” Mbatha said. “But that’s how things are in South Africa.”
I, for one, believe that Judge Masipa imposed an overly lenient sentence upon Pistorius, and had expected that she would sentence him to about 10 years of prison rather than the 5 year sentence she chose. After all, an intelligent, beautiful, and lovely woman with unlimited promise was stricken dead in the prime of her life for no good reason under somewhat suspicious circumstances, by a man (Pistorius) who shot first and never asked any questions. Then again, I was not in the courtroom hearing the evidence and observing the demeanor of the witnesses, including, most importantly, that of Pistorius. Was he acting when he sobbed incessantly during the trial and caused numerous delays in the proceedings or was he genuinely expressing sorrow and remorse for accidentally killing his girlfriend? Or, was he just feeling badly for having ensnared himself in such a dire predicament, and playing “crying games,” contemplating how he could spend the rest of his life in prison? (i.e., he was sorry that he had gotten caught).
My opinion of this sentence, however, would appear to be irrelevant because both the defense and the victim’s family are “on board” with Judge Masipa’s sentence. Pistorius’ uncle, Arnold Pistorius, said they will not fight the sentence. “Oscar will embrace this opportunity to pay back to society,” he said. Demonstrating the seemingly infinite ability of some people to forgive their loved one’s killers, Steenkamp’s mother, June, said justice was done. “It’s right,” she said. “There’s no closure without Reeva.”
At all events, this is a sad situation all around. Two lives and two families have been irrevocably destroyed by the accidental death of Reeva Steenkamp. Moreover, the beacon of light that Pistorius provided to both disabled and able-bodied people throughout the world by his exciting and inspiring performances in the London Olympic and Paralympic Games of 2012 has been forever tarnished. Oscar Pistorius is a tragic hero who has fallen to earth.
Rick Stack is a Los Angeles-based tax lawyer working in the private sector. Prior to that, he worked for many years as a Federal Prosecutor in the Tax Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. He resides in Los Angeles County and is interested in politics, civil rights, his family and the Chicago Bears. Rick is one of All Things Crime Blog’s earliest supporters and is known for his trenchant and unabashed comments.