From inside the courtroom:
Masipa: A non-custodial sentence would send a wrong message to the community. On the other hand, a long sentence would not be appropriate either.
Masipa says she's considered all the evidence placed before her.
From inside the courtroom:
Masipa says that while both Pistorius and the man in the second case were reacting to a noise, the door actually opened in the second case.
Masipa has already ruled correctional supervision for Pistorius.
The man got a suspended sentence as part of the plea deal.
The man entered a plea with the NPA that saw him plead guilty to culpable homicide.
Masipa moves on to the second case cited. A man heard someone in his bathroom, armed himself and went towards the noise. The door opened and he fired out of fright, killing his wife.
Masipa says the sentence suggested by Vergeer and Maringa would not be appropriate given the degree of negligence. They suggested 3 years house arrest
Pistorius was trained in the use of firearms, which requires a high degree of responsibility Masipa says
Vorster was trying to scare the intruder while Pistorius was aiming to shoot the intruder
In the Vorster case, only one shot was fired and it was into the roof. Pistorius shot four shots into the door.
She then runs through the ways in which they differ. Pistorius knew there was someone behind the door, Vorster did not.
She says they're only similar in that Pistorius thought there was an intruder, tried to resuscitate Steenkamp and is still traumatized.
Masipa says the facts in the Vorster case are dissimilar to the current case.
Masipa quotes extensively from the case.
From inside the courtroom:
Masipa notes that the man shot at an angle, and lower than he would've if intentionally firing at someone to kill. Masipa earlier said that Pistorius shot lower as well.
Masipa says that neither of the cases she considered were "on point" as it relates to this case
The first dealt with a man who accidentally shot a small child.
Masipa says she needs to deal with two of the cases referenced by the defense.
From inside the courtroom:
Masipa is now reading her conclusion.
Masipa: There's a delicate balance between the crime, the criminal and the debt to society.
Masipa says she hopes the judgment provides some sort of closure to Steenkamps' friends and family
Masipa: "The loss of life cannot be reversed. Nothing I say or do today can reverse what happened"
Masipa brings it back to Reeva Steenkamp . She calls her young, vivacious and full of life at the time of her death.
Masipa quotes from case law that says if sentences for serious crimes are too lenient, the system may fall into disrepute and people could take the law into their own hands.
From inside the courtroom:
Masipa says there's a difference between public interest and what the public wants. She says courts can't compete in a popularity contest and that society can't always get what it wants.
Masipa says she's taken note of that fact but is disregarding the specific reports brought up by defense.
Masipa says that negative media reports affected Pistorius reputation and career prospects.
Masipa says mitigating factors include that Pistorius is a first offender and remorseful.
Masipa says it's significant that Pistorius had been trained in the use of firearms.
Masipa moves on to the seriousness of the offenses. She says both are very serious.
She says, however, that this needs to be put in perspective.
Masipa says there's no denying that Pistorius contributed to society.
Masipa says an overemphasis was placed on Pistorius' vulnerability. She says he has excellent coping skills.
Masipa says that pregnant women are sentenced to jail. She says it would be a sad day if the impression was created that there's one law for the rich and famous, and another for the poor and disadvantaged.
Masipa says Pistorius wouldn't present the prison system with an insurmountable challenge.
Masipa says that the defense's concern isn't just about Pistorius' disability, but also his mental and physical health needs.
From inside the courtroom:
Masipa: It would be unreasonable for this court to usurp the functions of the department of correctional services after sentence.
From inside the courtroom:
Oscar Pistorius has arrived in court.
Nel says that correctional supervision only pays 'lip service' to the seriousness of the offense.
Nel reads from the record where Pistorius said he didn't fire a warning shot into the shower because it could have ricocheted and hit him. Nel followed up and Pistorius said the same thing could've happened in the toilet cubicle - thus showing negligence.
Nel going for the top end of possible sentencing - as close to 15 years as the court will allow.
Nel says that the negligence border lined on premeditated murder and says the sentence should reflect that.
Nel says that Pistorius was grossly negligent.
Oct. 21, 2014
