Secondary victims in the spotlight as Oscar Pistorius' sentencing proceedings came to a close.
|||A lenient sentence for Oscar Pistorius would be a blow to the Steenkamp family's right to justice, and as secondary victims in the matter, their rights should be placed above those of the athlete.
This was one of the major closing arguments of state prosecutor Gerrie Nel, as Oscar Pistorius' sentencing proceedings came to a close.
Pistorius was convicted of murder in December after the Supreme Court of Appeal overturned his culpable homicide conviction.
The athlete was initially convicted of culpable homicide for firing four bullets through a closed bathroom door at his Pretoria estate, hitting his model girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, whom he believed was an intruder.
This week, the defence and state have argued in aggravation and mitigation of Pistorius' minimum 15 year sentence for the murder.
Earlier in the day, Nel attacked Pistorius' lack of remorse, negligent use of heavy ammunition and behaviour while in prison as some of the reasons why the court should impose a harsh sentence.
Nel's arguments begged the court to acknowledge that because Pistorius had never once spoken the truth, he showed a clear lack of remorse for what he had done.
The prosecutor indicated that since the SCA judgement, the state's case had changed, and it believed that Pistorius had direct intent to kill the person behind the bathroom door.
“It's very close to dolus directus (direct intent to kill),” said Nel.
He moved onto the fact that because Pistorius had been trained in firearms use, his behaviour should be an aggravating factor in his sentencing.
The prosecutor said the defence's request for correctional supervision came nowhere near the warranted retribution for such a serious crime.
Nel said the courts have a duty to impose minimum sentences, rather than adhering to the “flimsiest” reasons to deviate from them.
After the lunch break, Nel continued by saying that reducing a sentence out of “misplaced pity” would be a failure of the court.
“The court convicted this accused... of culpable homicide and in its judgment said it was a very serious offence,” said Nel.
He argued that Pistorius' rehabilitation should play a lesser role in the sentencing.
Nel returned to Steenkamp's father, Barry, and his testimony that the images of his daughter's wounds be made public, to show what she went through. “A sentence by this court should deter people (from similar crimes),” said Nel.
He proclaimed that Steenkamp's family were other victims in this matter, and it was their right to see justice. Nel reminded the court of Barry's testimony that he would never see his daughter alive again. If they were not considered, it would be equivalent to silencing them, the lawyer argued.
He said the impact of Steenkamp's death is still severe and the mother of the deceased only forgave Pistorius for her own peace of mind. “We have an accused who does not even admit he committed a crime,” said Nel.
He pointed out that Pistorius was willing to speak about the shooting on an upcoming ITV interview, but that he had refused to take the court into his confidence and take the stand during the sentencing proceedings.
“This is disrespectful to the court,” he said.
Regarding Pistorius' defence that his mental health issues would be exacerbated in prison, Nel produced case law saying that prisons were primarily institutions of punishment, not cure.
However, he noted that Pistorius was allowed private visits by doctors, his pastor and psychologist.
Nel argued that Steenkamp's personal circumstances had vanished during the defence's arguments this week, only focusing on Pistorius' health and needs.
When Pistorius' fired on the perceived intruder, he also didn't take into account that person's life either, according to the prosecutor.
He said that even if it had been an intruder, this wouldn't have been a mitigating factor either.
In conclusion, Nel said that if the minimum sentence of fifteen years is deviated from, the court still impose a long term of imprisonment.
“I don't think the life of Reeva Steenkamp (is worth) the minimum,” he said.
Nel then asked the court to lift its earlier order preventing the images of Steenkamp's body being shown to the public. He said he had already spoken with Steenkamp's parents, and they had agreed with the application.
Judge Thokozile Masipa asked if Nel was trying to exit the scope of the sentencing proceedings. “The purpose of these proceedings is to sentence afresh,” she said.
Nel said the photographs were requested as part of the state's aggravation of sentence arguments.
He said the request only emerged during the current proceedings.
Defence advocate Barry Roux said the request should be part of a full application, as the interests of all parties should be taken into account.
He then suggested that it could potentially seen by children if the photographs were published. Nel rebutted that the application was not a complicated one. He explained he did not want the photo to be broadcast on television or in newspapers and it was up to the publishers to determine how or if they would be used.
Judge Masipa said she would consider the explanation.
She also decided that releasing the photos to the public should be allowed, even though the state was the party that initially requested they be kept private.
Before court adjourned for the day, it was announced that Pistorius will be sentenced on 6 July, during the second week of the court recess.
Shain.germaner@inl.co.za
The Star