Money slows system
CRIMINALS recently received a major shot in the arm when the Supreme Court of Appeal decided that a lawabiding citizen who oversteps the bounds of self-defence by killing a burglar is a murderer, if it can be shown that he foresaw that his actions could result in the burglar’s death.
What this means is that a rape victim who guns down a rapist who is in the process of fleeing the scene of the crime could also be convicted of murder (with the court focusing on the fact that she had no lawful reason to kill the rapist; ignoring her state of mind and that there was almost no premeditation.
The situation is not quite as dire as one might think for Pistorius has not been found guilty of premeditated murder. This is punished with a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment unless compelling circumstances are found.
He has been found guilty of “ordinary murder”. This carries a mandatory sentence of 15 years unless compelling circumstances are found.
Due to the fact that he is disabled person, he is likely to receive a sentence that is well within the parameters of what someone convicted of culpable homicide could receive. This provides for a maximum sentence of 15 years http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w orld/africa/what-is-culpable-homicideand-what-is-the-maximum-sentenceoscar-pistorius-could-face-9728168.html)
All we are likely to have gained by the appeal against Pistorius’s conviction is the satisfaction of being able to refer to him as a murderer.
The Pistorius trial would have been less complicated and confusing if we had followed the example of the US by charging Pistorius with second or third degree murder, thereby highlighting, that the criteria for obtaining a conviction would be vastly different.
Unfortunately, a system that discriminates between first and second degree murder would leave attorneys and advocates with less room for argument – with less room to muddy the waters – and would almost certainly result in them earning a lot less money.Therein lies the problem. Terence Grant