Oscar Pistorius on murder charge

[heckles]

I think the fact that his lawyer got there before the police did looks worse than his calling his friend, although I'm not sure whether that looks worse for him or for the police .

Has it been reported when the police were finally called, and when they arrived?

[skatefan]

On the BBC News this morning, talk about twists and turns for the Pistorius family ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...car-crash.html


I thought that the cricket bat issue had been dealt with, ie to smash down the toilet door, so I was shocked to read this item http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-injuries.html
does anyone have any further news about this?

[Ziggy]

Do have in mind, it's the Daily Mail which is a terrible, unreliable rag.

I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not an expert in the laws of South Africa, so I'm just trying to understand why some people who confess to a crime are granted bail until trial, and others are kept in jail with the time credited to whatever sentence is eventually ruled.

Because some are dangerous to society and/or a serious flight risk and others aren't.

[Vash01]

Gee thanks for that insightful response to my honest question.

I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not an expert in the laws of South Africa, so I'm just trying to understand why some people who confess to a crime are granted bail until trial, and others are kept in jail with the time credited to whatever sentence is eventually ruled.

Before you make a snarky remark like that, try to understand that different countries have different laws, different ways of looking at things. You can't apply the laws of your country- whatever it may be- to a case in South Africa.

[skatefan]

Do have in mind, it's the Daily Mail which is a terrible, unreliable rag.

Yeah, that's why I wondered whether it's being reported elsewhere, not good for Pistorius if the story is true.

What really bothers me about the whole tragic incident is that regardless of who had actually locked themselves in the toilet, surely, surely, it was a completely OTT attack on whoever was in there? Pistorius hadn't been attacked by the person if it was an intruder, no one was threatening his life, so for him to deliberately shoot and kill someone through a door rather than ring the Police immediately is just wrong.

[Lorac]

I thought that the cricket bat issue had been dealt with, ie to smash down the toilet door, so I was shocked to read this item http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-injuries.html
does anyone have any further news about this?

Wasn't it stated in court during the bail hearing that there were no other injuries on Reeva other than the gunshot wounds? I am sure if there were head injuries from the cricket bat that would have be brought up by the prosecution to ensure he didn't get bail and to further solidify their charge of pre-meditated murder.

[Jenny]

I think the South African law makes that determination.

Before you make a snarky remark like that, try to understand that different countries have different laws, different ways of looking at things. You can't apply the laws of your country- whatever it may be- to a case in South Africa.

Excuse me? I posted a general question as part of our ongoing discussion, and you respond with this very obvious point and a wink. And now, you further suggest that I need to understand something that I - and everyone else in this thread - quite clearly do understand. Give us all some credit please.



But onward. Prancer makes a good point that confessions don't always mean that the person actually did it - and given that forced confessions at the hands of interrogators are sometimes an issue, it does make sense.

I also see the points of flight risk and danger to others as several other posters pointed out. However, in doing some searches on this topic, I found many cases of people accused of brutal and multiple crimes - murder and sexual assault, including against children - where the bail was granted, and that puzzles me.

As for Oscar, it doesn't appear that the prosecution was able to show any risk to society other than their unsubstantiated suggestions of a history of domestic violence, and the terms of bail, and his fame, would certainly make it difficult for him to flee.

[*Jen*]

I also see the points of flight risk and danger to others as several other posters pointed out. However, in doing some searches on this topic, I found many cases of people accused of brutal and multiple crimes - murder and sexual assault, including against children - where the bail was granted, and that puzzles me.

As for Oscar, it doesn't appear that the prosecution was able to show any risk to society other than their unsubstantiated suggestions of a history of domestic violence, and the terms of bail, and his fame, would certainly make it difficult for him to flee.

There is a set procedure for bail in most countries, as in South Africa. I followed the trial on the Guardian's live blog, and the judge set it out really well. I'm sorry, I'm on a dodgy computer so can't link it properly, but here you are: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog...791e976a3e6a21

Basically, it will depend on whether or not there are previous convictions which show a propensity for violence, anything else which shows that propensity for violence, anything to suggest a flight risk, or a risk to the life of the defendant.

Some people are released on bail for horrible crimes because they lack the criminal history to show a propensity, and also at their age you would expect them to have already committed a violent crime or violent behaviour if they had the propensity. Others might be remanded on a lesser charge, such as theft, if they have a history of previous convictions, failure to turn up in court and history of committing crimes while on bail.

Don't forget that jail is expensive to society, so unless the defendant poses a serious risk, it's actually better for them to be elsewhere. Also, bail is often conditional on visiting a police station, or attending some kind of community programe, or even having a curfew.

[gkelly]

I'm not an expert on law enforcement or penal systems either, and I'm sure practices vary between jurisdictions.

But my general understanding is that the purpose of jails is to hold suspects until arraignment, and if necessary (e.g., flight risk, danger to the public) until trial, whereas the purpose of prisons is to punish convicted offenders. So they're not interchangeable and not overseen by the same authorities, although jail time can sometimes be credited toward prison sentences. But in principle jail time serves practical purposes for the police rather than punitive purposes for the inmates. (I'm sure the inmates' experience is that it's plenty punitive.) Jails aren't really designed to hold people for long periods of time, which leads to problems when the court system is backed up.

[*Jen*]

I'm not an expert on law enforcement or penal systems either, and I'm sure practices vary between jurisdictions.

But my general understanding is that the purpose of jails is to hold suspects until arraignment, and if necessary (e.g., flight risk, danger to the public) until trial, whereas the purpose of prisons is to punish convicted offenders. So they're not interchangeable and not overseen by the same authorities, although jail time can sometimes be credited toward prison sentences. But in principle jail time serves practical purposes for the police rather than punitive purposes for the inmates. (I'm sure the inmates' experience is that it's plenty punitive.) Jails aren't really designed to hold people for long periods of time, which leads to problems when the court system is backed up.

Definitely not in every jurisdiction. In the UK, the term is used interchangeably.

"Custody" refers to a period of detention before trial, whereas "imprisonment" is after sentencing...but they both normally occur in a prison/jail. Prison is the more common term in the UK.

My understanding is that it's the same in South Africa, although Pistorius was remanded in a police station before the bail hearing exceptionally because of his status, and there were fears for his safety in prison.

Edited to add - I did a little research, and your description is right for the US, but definitely not the UK or South Africa.

Also, some countries (like the UK) would never allow bail to a murder suspect, but clearly South Africa does.

[BittyBug]

I'm not an expert on law enforcement or penal systems either, and I'm sure practices vary between jurisdictions.

But my general understanding is that the purpose of jails is to hold suspects until arraignment, and if necessary (e.g., flight risk, danger to the public) until trial, whereas the purpose of prisons is to punish convicted offenders. So they're not interchangeable and not overseen by the same authorities, although jail time can sometimes be credited toward prison sentences. But in principle jail time serves practical purposes for the police rather than punitive purposes for the inmates. (I'm sure the inmates' experience is that it's plenty punitive.) Jails aren't really designed to hold people for long periods of time, which leads to problems when the court system is backed up.

Sounds like you're using "jail" to refer to holding cells in a police station.

ETA: Nevermind. Just followed up on *Jen*'s comments, and you are most definitely correct. Just one more thing I learned from FSU.

[Prancer]

Sounds like you're using "jail" to refer to holding cells in a police station.

I don't know about everywhere, but here, "jail" does refer to temporary holding cells, although not at the police station; "prison" is for long-term incarceration.

The security provisions and living conditions are quite different. I'd much rather be in jail than prison.

[Coco]

Wasn't it stated in court during the bail hearing that there were no other injuries on Reeva other than the gunshot wounds? I am sure if there were head injuries from the cricket bat that would have be brought up by the prosecution to ensure he didn't get bail and to further solidify their charge of pre-meditated murder.

It was, although I haven't seen a direct quote from the police. If you search on google, you'll see two phrases, "no defensive wounds," and "no signs of assault."

https://www.google.com/search?q=both...hrome&ie=UTF-8

[Prancer]

The Pistorius family is going to become very familiar with the different legal definitions of murder: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/24/world/...dmn_topstories

And in this interview, the man who identified Reeva's body says there was no sign that she had been assaulted with a cricket bat:

Mr Myers, who identified Miss Steenkamp's body, told the Daily Telegraph that he was "surprised" by reports that she had been assaulted with a cricket bat.

"When I identified Reeva, I saw no indication of that", he said. "The first I knew about it was when I read it in the papers. I do not know where that came from".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...Steenkamp.html

He doesn't have much good to say about Oscar, but I wonder how much of that is after the fact.

[heckles]

He doesn't have much good to say about Oscar, but I wonder how much of that is after the fact.

Myers was concerned enough that he had a talk with Pistorius about his behavior, so it would seem that he saw some bad signs even before the killing.

[twinsissv]

I don't know if Oscar Pistorius is familiar with old romantic songs or not. But if he feels as shattered and brokenhearted as he looked at the bail hearings, I hope that he'll never have to hear what I heard today on the Easy Listening Channel. The song was, of course, "My Funny Valentine". As I sang along, I realized that the final sentiment in that lyric line would be absolutely gut-wrenching for someone who really cared deeply about her.
"Stay, little Valentine...stay.
Each day is...Valentine's Day..."
omg...

[mikemba]

Because here's what I'm thinking - he's admitted he killed her, so it's just a matter if he meant to do it or not. At some point, he's due to go to jail, length of time tbd. (snip) As a confessed killer

I thought your whole post posed an interesting question, but here's a thought with respect to the part I quoted and bolded. Although he admitted "killing" her he did not admit being a "killer". I think it's similar (although, of course not identical) to someone who admits "killing" in self defense but not to being a "killer." So I think there are three possibilities: premeditated murder, a killing in which he is found somewhat legally responsible and must do prison time, and a verdict which involves no prison time (either guilty on a lesser charge with no sentence or a not guilty verdict). I am no expert on the SA legal system, but even so, I think the distinction between admitting to killing and admitting to being a killer is an important one.

[orbitz]

Accidental killing usually do not get jail time. He is in trouble for illegally owning a gun though so he might serve time for that.

[Rafter]

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/world/...age/index.html

[Jenny]

Thanks for sharing Rafter - this paragraph at the end has me

In the meantime, Pistorius has been released on bail and awaits his fate at his uncle's multimillion-dollar mansion in Pretoria, South Africa. He's no longer required to visit police twice a week under the terms of his bail. Instead authorities will now visit him at his uncle's -- and only occasionally.