Experts shocked by murder acquittal of Pistorius

Share

When the news broke that Oscar Pistorius had been acquitted of murder for shooting his girlfriend, South Africa's social media were soon filled with talk about a hip-hop performer named "Jub Jub."

South Africans demanded to know why Mr. Pistorius could escape a murder conviction, after Jub Jub had been sentenced to 20 years in prison for a similarly unplanned killing. The rapper was convicted of murder in 2012 for plowing his Mini Cooper into a group of schoolboys on a Soweto street during a drag race.

It was all part of the controversy that erupted on Thursday across the country when Judge Thokozile Masipa ruled that the Olympic sprinting hero should be cleared of murder. He could still be convicted of culpable homicide (manslaughter) and lesser firearms charges when the judge finishes delivering the verdict on Friday. But many legal experts and commentators were sharply critical of Judge Masipa for acquitting Mr. Pistorius of murder.

The parallels between the Pistorius case and the Jub Jub case are striking. In both cases, the men were charged with murder because prosecutors said they must have foreseen the lethal consequences of their reckless actions.

In the case of Jub Jub, the deadly weapon was a Mini Cooper. In the case of Mr. Pistorius, it was a 9 mm pistol, which he fired four times through a bathroom door, killing Reeva Steenkamp. Yet, while the rapper was convicted, the Olympic double-amputee "Blade Runner" was acquitted.

Was it a double standard? If the hip-hop star could be convicted of murder for what he did with a fast car, why couldn't Mr. Pistorius be convicted of murder for what he did with a gun? Some South Africans even asked why the black celebrity was convicted, while the white celebrity was acquitted.

Mr. Pistorius could have been convicted of either of two different versions of murder, but he was cleared of both – even though the judge criticized him as evasive and dishonest on the witness stand.

Few people were surprised that he was acquitted of premeditated murder, the toughest charge against him. Judge Masipa rapidly demolished the testimony of neighbours who thought they heard a woman's screams on the night of the shooting. She found no evidence that Mr. Pistorius deliberately intended to kill Ms. Steenkamp after an argument or fight. But she could still have convicted him of unplanned murder, and she refused to do that.

In both the Pistorius and Jub Jub cases, the murder charges hinged on the concept of dolus eventualis – a form of murder in which the defendants can foresee that their reckless conduct would lead to someone's death. Even if Mr. Pistorius thought an intruder was inside the bathroom, as he has claimed, the prosecutors said he still must have foreseen that the person behind the door would be killed by the four hollow-point bullets that he fired into the door at close range.

Judge Masipa rejected this argument. "The evidence failed to prove that the accused had intention," she said in her verdict. "Clearly he did not objectively foresee that he would kill the person behind the door."

Several legal experts said they were shocked by the decision, and some predicted that the prosecution would successfully appeal the acquittal. They said it was clearly foreseeable to Mr. Pistorius that his four gunshots would kill anyone inside the small enclosed cubicle behind the door.

"Given all the evidence presented in court about Pistorius's knowledge of guns and what the bullets he used would do to a person, it is unlikely in the extreme that Pistorius did not foresee that the person behind the door … would be killed," said Pierre De Vos, a respected law professor and legal commentator in South Africa, in a commentary posted after the verdict.

Mr. Pistorius sobbed and trembled in the courtroom as he was cleared of murder, but he still faces the possibility of a culpable homicide conviction as the judge found his conduct "unlawful" and "negligent" and said he had used "excessive force."

If she convicts Mr. Pistorius of culpable homicide, there will be weeks of legal arguments about his sentence. He could face anything from a suspended sentence to a 15-year jail term.