Oscar Pistorius Now Convicted of Murder

Originally posted by sh76
A judge can dismiss a case or reverse a conviction if he believes the evidence is insufficient.

Miscarriages of justice will happen under any system. The reason for the jury is not necessarily that the jury is always the best trier of fact. The reason is that criminal juries are a powerful bulwark against government tyranny. That "they" can't punish you unti ...[text shortened]... t tyranny, not by being brilliant triers of fact but by scrutinizing and discarding unfair laws.

Sure, that argument makes sense in the 18th Century.

In the 21st Century, in a modern multi-party democracy with accountable government? Not so much.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Have you read John Grisham's non-fiction book The Innocent Man? It centers around a guy who is tried and convicted by a jury and put on death row for murder, without the slightest thread of evidence.

Electing a judge is a bad idea for the same reason juries are a bad idea. Would you want to be tried by your "peers" including people like whodey ...[text shortened]... getting a law degree may be, it at least requires the judge to possess some degree of literacy.

There's a jury selection process that lawyers use to weed out idiots like you mentioned.

Judges are no less free of prejudices than the average person; perhaps more so. There is no special expertise needed to decide questions of fact.

I don't agree with your elitist arguments on this subject and many others.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Few want their clients to be tried in front of a judge either though it does happen in a small number of cases.

Do you think judges are free of prejudices?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Why are you always so hyper-aggressive? To people raised in a jury based system, it doesn't seem to make much sense for a higher court to convict someone of a higher charge when the triers of fact have declined to do so. After reading the decisions I understand the legal reasoning, but to call a layman "stupid" because he doesn't grasp a rather complex point of law (which may well be overturned by the SA Constitutional Court) is ungracious to say the least.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

In the US, an appellate court can vacate a conviction but cannot impose a conviction on a higher charge; at most it could order a second trial (maybe; I'm not sure if that would satisfy US standards of double jeopardy). So Sonhouse's confusion is understandable.

The SA appeals court decision did say that Pistorius was acquitted of murder; as I understand it, they could not have ruled on the merits of the murder charge if he hadn't been under existing precedents in SA law.

EDIT: The relevant discussion is at pp. 5-7 of the decision:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/12/oscar-pistorius-found-guilty-murder-full-text-court-decision/

The Court claimed that a precedent from 1982 which said prosecutor could only appeal from a complete acquittal (which is directly on point) had been overturned by a 2007 case merely stating that there was nothing in the language of the statute barring appeal by the State limited to the conviction or acquittal of the accused. Personally, I think that is a stretch. The Seekoei case where the State was not allowed to appeal where the defendant was convicted of a lesser charge is directly applicable here. Of course, it is up to the Constitutional Court to clear up the ambiguity and decide whether Seekoei is still good law or was overturned sub silentio.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Some who are more expert at SA law than I agree the case is likely headed to the Constitutional Court:

Kelly Phelps, criminal law expert at the University of Cape Town, argued that the appeal court’s determination on dolus eventualis was not sufficient in itself to overturn Pistorius’s conviction for culpable homicide, but when he could no longer rely on putative private defence, this became inevitable.

“Dolus eventualis ended up being the least impactful part of this case in terms of the ultimate verdict,” Phelps said. “The real punchline of this judgment was actually the reversal of Judge Masipa’s factual finding on putative private defence.”

She said she believed the case was headed for the constitutional court. “I’d be very surprised if there wasn’t a massive effort going on now to establish constitutional grounds for an appeal. The key thing with the constitution is that the scope of appeals is very broad. If one looks hard enough, you can almost always find a constitutional ground for an appeal. In a case like this, which is already in exceptional terrain because the state has taken the unusual step of appealing a conviction, there are big legal questions around double jeopardy and the legal ambit of the supreme court of appeal,” she said.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/03/oscar-pistorius-set-to-return-to-jail-after-appeal-court-finds-him-guilty-of

Originally posted by normbenign
What I find interesting is the difference between S.African criminal law and that of the US. Apparently, double jeopardy is not disallowed in SA. In the US, once convicted, or acquitted, the prosecution doesn't get a second bite of the apple.

I think overall, I prefer the American system, where some guilty persons may escape punishment, but it is less likely that an innocent person gets punished.

I prefer a system that makes it as hard as possible for some guilty persons to escape punishment.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I prefer a system that makes it as hard as possible for some guilty persons to escape punishment.

That would be this system: kill everyone.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The main thing I see is either Pistorius really believed he was in mortal danger or that he really wanted to kill his gf.

His gf is now dead either way. The courts ruled someone firing 4 shots is over kill. One shot should have been enough to deter a burglar.

I mentioned 4 years, it was less than one year in jail, should have fact checked.

In cases like this, it seems consideration should be made of the possibility he was telling the truth and was fearful for his life.

It seems a bit slim that is the truth but how can we ever prove otherwise?

His professional life is over in any event, that which kept him going mentally.

So I don't consider him innocent in any way. He shot his gf and she is dead. Intent doesn't matter (I didn't know the gun was loaded kind of defense won't fly in most countries). She is still dead.

Was he acting in his original trial? He was shaken and crying a lot, seemed contrite.

I am just glad I was not the one required to judge him.

Not being telepathic, I nor anyone else can see very well into his mind, especially on that day and the days before.

I see he was also charged with discharging a weapon in a public place. That fact has to weigh in on the verdict, that and witnesses said the pair were arguing the same day she was shot,

So it will be up to the courts now to say how much time he wills serve.

So maybe 12 years with ONE year off for time served🙂