Introduction
Oscar Pistorius is a white South African Paralympic athlete, who has won the gold medal in major world sporting events. His legs were amputated, just below the knees, when he was 11 months old due to a congenital condition characterized by a lack of fibula in the legs. In 2013, he shot his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp fatally and later claimed that he had mistaken her for an intruder. He was then arrested by the police and charged with her murder, a charge he vehemently denied insisting that he did not shoot her intentionally. In 2014, he was found guilty of culpable homicide and sentenced to five years in jail and another three years suspended sentence on charges of reckless endangerment.
This sentence was considered lenient and met with uproar from within the country and across the world. He was, however, released from prison in October 2015, after serving a sixth of his sentence, a move that was seen to raise both political and social concerns. The prosecution also appealed the sentence and had him convicted on a murder charge by a panel of five judges; this led to an extension of his prison sentence to six years. The trial of Oscar Pistorius was interesting due to the fact that he was a white, famous individual in a country where racial and class discrimination is the norm which was a good recipe for the unexpected twists and turns of the case.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Law Enforcement in the Case
On an early Thursday morning on 14th February 2013, Oscar Pistorius shot his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in his home, apparently for having mistaken her for an invader. Steenkamp was in the bathroom, and the shots were fired across the bathroom door, fatally wounding her. Some neighbors gave hints of heated arguments having had occurred before the shots were fired, contradicting Pistorius’ version of how events had transpired on the fateful day (Mark, 2015). Pistorius was then taken into custody as the police and investigators embarked on efforts to unearth what had actually taken place. The investigations involved collecting evidence from witnesses, ballistic analysis of the crime scene and other attempted efforts to reconstruct the crime scene. After the arrest, Pistorius was booked into the local police station and later released on bond after which he moved in with his uncle pending the investigation and his trial.
The Bail Hearing
During the bail hearing, both the prosecution and the defense teams agreed on the fact that Pistorius had fired the four shots, three of which had fatally wounded the young model and law graduate. They, however, did not agree on whether the shots were intentionally meant for Steenkamp or were indeed meant for an intruder. The prosecution maintained that the murder was premeditated as Pistorius was wearing his prosthetics and witness accounts pointed out to arguments the night before the fateful incident. According to Wiener &Bateman (2014), Chief magistrate Desmond Nair made it clear during the bail hearing that Pistorius’ offense was a schedule 6 criminal offense and thus required very special circumstances in order for the accused to be released. On 22nd February 2013, the magistrate granted him bail after concluding that he was not a flight risk.
It wasn’t until August 2013 that Pistorius was indicted on murder charges as well as charges of holding ammunition illegally. It was concluded that even though he was not aware of the identity of the person he had shot at, his intention was to kill the individual.
The Murder Trial
The murder trial started on 3rd of March, 2014, and was presided over by Judge Thokozile Masipa in the High Court of Pretoria. The Bill of Rights, section 35, which asserts the right of every accused individual to a fair trial, was emphasized and the judge indicated that the trial would be conducted in the English language, but after having confirmed that Pistorius was conversant with the same (Mark, 2015). It was also made clear that there were no eyewitnesses to the murder and that the trial was to be based on circumstantial evidence. He took a no guilty plea during the start of the court proceedings, and this set in motion proceedings of the trial. Unlike during the bail hearing whereby the prosecution had stated that Pistorius had been wearing his prosthetic blades at the time of the murder, during the trial, they made it known that he had not been wearing them from evidence gathered by ballistic experts.
The defense lawyer’s opening statement indicated that the accused had believed that his girlfriend was in bed and when he felt movements in the bathroom, immediately suspected that a burglar was in the house. The defence team was led by Barry Roux, a well-known criminal lawyer. While he admitted to having killed his girlfriend, he denied the charge of murder, owing to the fact that murder is considered as the intentional and unlawful killing of another individual. His defence was based on the argument that he committed the act in self-defense, which is considered legitimate if its validity is proven as suggested by Wiener &Bateman (2014). If he would have been able to successfully argue his defense on the basis on non-intention to commit the murder, and further, if he had given the court enough reason to believe so, then he would be preferred a lesser charge of culpable homicide or a possible acquittal. Culpable homicide is considered as the neglectful killing of another individual though unintentionally.
During the trial, several witnesses were called upon to describe what they heard before, during, and after the shooting. The first witness testified to having heard heated arguments in Pistorius’ house which lasted for more than one hour. There were also accounts of sounds of gunshots and screams from five other witnesses on the day that the model was killed. The witnesses gave evidence for the next three days with the defence team also cross-examining the witnesses in a bid to show that it was actually Pistorius who was screaming in anguish after the accidental shooting.
A neighbor to Pistorius who is a radiologist on giving his account on events of the fateful morning stated that when he heard the gunshots, he rushed to his house where he found him in shock and praying over his girlfriend’s body. On seeing him, Pistorius started crying saying that he had shot her accidentally (Mark, 2015). The witness reiterated the fact that Pistorius could not have been pretending and that his immediate reaction to the incidence was that of agony and torment. Later, a guard at the estate where he lived with his girlfriend as well as a former girlfriend gave their evidence pertaining the case. When the chief government pathologist was called upon to give his findings, he did not hesitate to give the graphic details which sent the accused into a deep emotional state characterized by crying and vomiting.
Reeva Steenkamp had earlier on told Pistorius that she was scared of his temper and possessiveness, and this was established after investigators went through the WhatsApp messages that they had shared. Pistorius only got to testify a month later and was cross-examined by both the prosecution and the defense teams for five days. During cross-examination, the defense team sought to show that the two had a stable and loving relationship by asking Pistorius to read in court a card that Steenkamp had written him indicating that she indeed had been in love with him and that there were no tensions in their relationship. At this point, the defense team indicated that there were other witnesses into the case (Carlin, 2014). These were the immediate neighbors of Pistorius who claimed that Pistorius had cried and screamed out for their help after the shooting and insisted that there was no way he could have shot Reeva intentionally. These included a couple who lived next door who said that they heard a man call out for help and cry loudly while the caretaker of the premises testified that Pistorius had called him in a panic asking for assistance. Another female neighbor admitted to hearing cries of pain coming from a male in the house of Pistorius.
On 8th May 2013, Yvette Van Schalkwyk who was the probation officer in charge of the case indicated that Pistorius was remorseful and had been suffering emotionally following the death of his girlfriend whom he missed a lot. On further probing by the prosecution, she admitted that at no point had Pistorius mentioned that he was sorry for killing Steenkamp. Mark (2015) states that the expert who had been hired by the defence team to carry out ballistic examinations also contested the prosecution’s claim that Steenkamp had tried covering her head in a bid to protect herself owing to the fact that she did not have any injuries on her hands.
A psychological evaluation from the defence psychologists as well as evidence from the doctor who fitted his prosthetic limbs indicated that Pistorius suffered from an anxiety disorder and was bound to rush to protect himself in instances of danger rather than run as put forward by Wiener &Bateman (2014). This was also affirmed by his agent and trainers who also affirmed that his temper was rarely out of control. An independent mental evaluation as requested by the defence showed he did not have any form of mental incapacitation and that he had the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.
As they made their closing arguments, the defense team made it clear that the case couldn’t conclude fairly as some witnesses were afraid of testifying in front of the media. The prosecution stated that Pistorius had made up lies in order to exonerate himself and that he should be severely punished for the crime.
The Verdict of the Oscar Pistorius Trial
The Presiding Judge with the help of two assessors delivered the verdict over a period of two days. The judge did not adopt most of the prosecution’s evidence as it was circumstantial and also termed Pistorius’ version of events as inconsistent (Mark, 2015). He stated that there was no reasonable proof to show that the killing was premeditated and indicated that the competent verdict was that of culpable murder. The judge affirmed that Pistorius was too hasty in his actions and that he should not have shot to kill as the threat was not clearly evident. He was therefore convicted of offenses of culpable homicide and contravention of the Firearms Control Act 2000 by irresponsible use of a firearm, therefore, causing harm. He was sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison for culpable homicide and another three years suspended sentence on the second charge. He was released on parole on 19th October 2015 after serving a sixth of his prison term, a decision that angered the public and Reeva’s family. The prosecution then contested the sentence leading to the upgrading of the culpable homicide charge to murder and in July 2016 was sentenced to six years in prison for murder.
Throughout the trial, Pistorius appeared emotional and broke down on a number of occasions. He was termed as emotionally distressed by the fact that he had killed Steenkamp although he never publicly apologized for the incidence. He was downcast most of the time and could not look Steenkamp’s parents in the eye during the court proceedings. He also threw up in the courtroom as the pathologist described the murder scene.
Conclusion
Oscar Pistorius killed his longtime girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day in 2013. His resultant arrest and trial have been the focus of international media as it was controversial in that it involved a capital crime committed by a White South African. During the trial, eyewitness accounts pointed out to a remorseful individual who cried and prayed after the killing. The prosecution, however, insisted that he committed the crime intentionally which was refuted by the defence attorneys. On consideration of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and defence teams, the judge convicted him of culpable homicide and reckless use of a firearm and sentenced him to five years in prison and a suspended three year sentence for the latter charge. The prosecution later appealed the sentence and had him sentenced to six years in prison on a murder charge.
References
Carlin, J. (2014). Chase Your Shadow: The Trials of Oscar Pistorius. Boswell Street, London: Atlantic Books.
Wiener, M. &Bateman, B. (2014). Behind the Door: The Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp Story. Sandton, JB: Pan Macmillan.
Mark, T. (2015). Oscar Pistorius to stay in prison until mid-September . New York: The Guardian.
