Oscar verdict and sentencing just?

The last time the world saw Oscar Pistorius, he was in a suit and tie looking well-polished as he was transported to Kgosi Mampuru II Prison (previously Pretoria Central Prison), after being slapped with a five year jail term for accidentally killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

The sentence was handed down by Judge Thokozile Masipa at the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on 21 October, bringing an enthralling and exhausting 49-day trial to an end.

People went atwitter, slamming the South African justice system as many were against both the culpable homicide verdict and the five-year jail sentence.

The question that needs a qualified opinion still remains; has justice been served?

Practising attorney from the University of Johannesburg Law Clinic Elton Hart shed some light onto the matter.

“From my experience, if the court finds that an accused person lacked the necessary intent to commit an offence, where intent is one of the elements of the crime, then the court will seek refuge in a competent verdict and with reference to the matter – State versus Oscar Pistorius – the court had to find him guilty on culpable homicide, which is a competent verdict if the State does not prove murder beyond reasonable doubt.

“If one evaluates the evidence, in my opinion, it was a just verdict,” said Hart.

The defence lawyers told media outside the court that Pistorius will only serve 10 months in prison.

The prospect of an early release caused a fierce backlash from South Africans, with many stating that the Blade Runner should have been convicted of murder and not culpable homicide.

How is it possible, then, that a convicted person can serve so little of his intended sentence?

“A lot is said that the convicted person will only serve 10 months and he will be out of jail. That is not a given; that is something that is in the discretion of the Department of Correctional Services. However, the maximum time he will have to sit in prison is five years if he is not considered for parole,” explained Hart.

According to Hart, parole is not a right but a privilege that is extended to a convicted person if they meet certain requirements set by the Parole Board. In this case, it would be Kgosi Mampuru II Prison’s Parole Board which will determine Oscar Pistorius’ fate.

Hart further informs that in the case at hand in terms of Section 276 of Act 51 of 1977, Pistorius needs to serve at least a sixth of his sentence prior to being eligible for parole.

“But again, it is not a definite that a convicted person will be granted parole,” he clarified.

Asked whether he would have had a different verdict on the Oscar Pistorius case, Hart answered “no”.

“I don’t think that I would have changed her verdict. The only thing that I would have addressed more thoroughly would have been how she got to the conclusion of finding the accused not guilty on dolus eventualis and rather [guilty of] culpable homicide,” he said.

Hart is of the opinion that the defence team will not appeal the sentence.

However, he said, “If the State appeals against the verdict I am of the opinion it will remain the same but the sentencing option might be changed to house arrest based on the Supreme Court of Appeals earlier ruling in the Humphries case.”