I don't want to minimize or trivialize the tragedy and loss of life (condolences to the family of Reeva Steenkamp) for the sake of intellectual discussion. The Oscar Pistorius murder trial has brought all of us closer to criminal court proceedings in South Africa. Immediately you can feel the massive cultural differences between the US and South Africa in seeing the liberal amount of video footage and picture taking that is permitted within the courtroom. This includes cell phone footage. This kind of informality is verboten in many US courts and most certainly in New York. In fact, you're not even permitted to read in certain courts while the judge is present and call takes place periodically.
And then there is the defendant's appearance on the bench, alone, in front of the judge in an open court whose lighting and general decorum has a most ominous feel. The images appear as if taken out of a museum. Those are just the aesthetics.
Getting to the law, I was quite surprised to hear that the prosecution intended to bring a charge of "premeditated murder," which would seem to be the equivalent of "first degree murder" or "first degree intentional homicide" here in the US. The actual title may vary based upon the state. In many instances this can be a fatal mistake, since the bar to proving the case is extremely high and very, very difficult. And in almost all circumstances there is usually an eyewitness, which there was not in this case.
After hearing the statement that Pistorius was alleged to have made during the bail hearing to explain his actions, it would seem that I have a better understanding as to why the prosecution decided to raise the charges to the maximum allowed under South African law. In short, they believe that the actions have no other explanation but that of premeditated murder. Proof of a lesser crime, such as heat of passion murder (spontaneous, momentary anger that leads to murder), is not sufficient to convict a criminal defendant of first degree premeditated murder.
Oscar Pistorius was reported to claim that the bedroom was dark and that he heard a sound in the bathroom while he was in bed, supposedly with his girlfriend Reeva. He went for his gun while screaming to the intruder and walked, on his stumps, towards the bathroom and fired several shots through the door. Nobody can or should proclaim guilt or innocence until all the facts are in -- significant errors may be made and the explanation of events could certainly change. But at the moment, they certainly do not look good. The gun holster was found on the side of the bed where Reeva Steenkamp had slept, making it almost impossible (or certainly remarkably unlikely) that Pistorius would have missed discovering she wasn't in the bed while making his way over to the gun and then leaving the room.
And then there is a matter of the ballistics report. Pistorius is over 6 feet tall with his prosthetic legs. Looking at photos, he must be at least 6-8 inches shorter, if not more, without his prosthetics, which the prosecution insists were used and strapped on when Pistorius left his bed and proceeded towards the bathroom. The lead investigator, with over 20 years experience, stated that the bullets entered the closed bathroom door aimed at the toilet and struck the victim as part of a downward trajectory. Given that Reeva Steenkamp was struck at least once in the head, it would seem more likely that Pistorius probably did put on his prosthetic legs. At the same time, the lead detective was also reported to have made some mistakes regarding distances. There is some testimony that errors were made in the collection of evidence - although it appears to be more of a technical nature than actually explaining the incident.
More damning witness accounts include a report that neighbors saw a light on around the time of the incident and also heard one shot fired, followed by a period of shouting and then shots fired roughly 15 or so minutes later. And if that was not enough, it is puzzling why a man wouldn't yell aloud and wait for a response from a supposed intruder in a locked bathroom to confirm that the person inside was not, in fact, his girlfriend.
In this country, the Fifth Amendment - a part of the Bill of Rights - grants the right to remain silent to a criminal suspect / defendant. They do not have to provide any statement explaining an outcome that appears to be connected with the actions of the defendant. I'm not sure how much was prior derived from Pistorius directly, right after the incident. But the explanation provided by Pistorius in the bail hearing is certainly one that would almost certainly not occur in the US. I have no idea as to law in South Africa and whether Pistorius voluntarily made that statement in order to try to be provided with bail - which would seem foolhardy. Perhaps the South African system might be more inclined towards evoking testimony from a criminal defendant and requiring him or her to speak up to explain his or her actions - I don't know. In the U.S., the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent also extends to not being required to testify on his or her own behalf. Furthermore, no inference of guilt may be drawn by the prosecution from the criminal defendant's decision not to testify.
This trial is certainly interesting to me intellectually, understanding how the crime of murder is perceived and prosecuted around the globe. I just wish that this experience wasn't the byproduct of a terrible tragedy and loss of precious life.
And then there is the defendant's appearance on the bench, alone, in front of the judge in an open court whose lighting and general decorum has a most ominous feel. The images appear as if taken out of a museum. Those are just the aesthetics.
Getting to the law, I was quite surprised to hear that the prosecution intended to bring a charge of "premeditated murder," which would seem to be the equivalent of "first degree murder" or "first degree intentional homicide" here in the US. The actual title may vary based upon the state. In many instances this can be a fatal mistake, since the bar to proving the case is extremely high and very, very difficult. And in almost all circumstances there is usually an eyewitness, which there was not in this case.
After hearing the statement that Pistorius was alleged to have made during the bail hearing to explain his actions, it would seem that I have a better understanding as to why the prosecution decided to raise the charges to the maximum allowed under South African law. In short, they believe that the actions have no other explanation but that of premeditated murder. Proof of a lesser crime, such as heat of passion murder (spontaneous, momentary anger that leads to murder), is not sufficient to convict a criminal defendant of first degree premeditated murder.
Oscar Pistorius was reported to claim that the bedroom was dark and that he heard a sound in the bathroom while he was in bed, supposedly with his girlfriend Reeva. He went for his gun while screaming to the intruder and walked, on his stumps, towards the bathroom and fired several shots through the door. Nobody can or should proclaim guilt or innocence until all the facts are in -- significant errors may be made and the explanation of events could certainly change. But at the moment, they certainly do not look good. The gun holster was found on the side of the bed where Reeva Steenkamp had slept, making it almost impossible (or certainly remarkably unlikely) that Pistorius would have missed discovering she wasn't in the bed while making his way over to the gun and then leaving the room.
And then there is a matter of the ballistics report. Pistorius is over 6 feet tall with his prosthetic legs. Looking at photos, he must be at least 6-8 inches shorter, if not more, without his prosthetics, which the prosecution insists were used and strapped on when Pistorius left his bed and proceeded towards the bathroom. The lead investigator, with over 20 years experience, stated that the bullets entered the closed bathroom door aimed at the toilet and struck the victim as part of a downward trajectory. Given that Reeva Steenkamp was struck at least once in the head, it would seem more likely that Pistorius probably did put on his prosthetic legs. At the same time, the lead detective was also reported to have made some mistakes regarding distances. There is some testimony that errors were made in the collection of evidence - although it appears to be more of a technical nature than actually explaining the incident.
More damning witness accounts include a report that neighbors saw a light on around the time of the incident and also heard one shot fired, followed by a period of shouting and then shots fired roughly 15 or so minutes later. And if that was not enough, it is puzzling why a man wouldn't yell aloud and wait for a response from a supposed intruder in a locked bathroom to confirm that the person inside was not, in fact, his girlfriend.
In this country, the Fifth Amendment - a part of the Bill of Rights - grants the right to remain silent to a criminal suspect / defendant. They do not have to provide any statement explaining an outcome that appears to be connected with the actions of the defendant. I'm not sure how much was prior derived from Pistorius directly, right after the incident. But the explanation provided by Pistorius in the bail hearing is certainly one that would almost certainly not occur in the US. I have no idea as to law in South Africa and whether Pistorius voluntarily made that statement in order to try to be provided with bail - which would seem foolhardy. Perhaps the South African system might be more inclined towards evoking testimony from a criminal defendant and requiring him or her to speak up to explain his or her actions - I don't know. In the U.S., the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent also extends to not being required to testify on his or her own behalf. Furthermore, no inference of guilt may be drawn by the prosecution from the criminal defendant's decision not to testify.
This trial is certainly interesting to me intellectually, understanding how the crime of murder is perceived and prosecuted around the globe. I just wish that this experience wasn't the byproduct of a terrible tragedy and loss of precious life.
