Judge Thokozile Masipa found Oscar Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide last month. On Tuesday, she sentenced him to five years in prison. It is a spectacular fall for the athlete, from Olympic stardom to a jail cell that is unlikely to be much bigger than the bathroom in which he killed Reeva Steenkamp.
The prosecution’s case was that Pistorius committed a murder. His defence team would have had us believe that a charitable, sensitive, timid man was subjected to an unfortunate accident that caused him to lose everything — what they called, in a peculiar elision of Steenkamp, his “love relationship,” his reputation and his career.
In her assured, considered and controversial judgement, Masipa sidestepped the melodrama of the case and gave a salutary lesson in complexity, objectivity and compassion.
“South Africa has a constitution which applies to everyone and protects everyone including those who transgress,” she said.
While Pistorius has been read by many in the media — particularly the foreign media — as metonymic for South Africa’s triumph over the crippling legacy of apartheid, the judge sought out complexity and depth for a nuanced reading of Pistorius as a devastated man who had, through his own gross negligence, taken the life of a vivacious young woman he purports to have loved.
“One witness after another placing an over-emphasis on the accused’s vulnerability — yes, he is vulnerable; he also has excellent coping skills,” Masipa stated in her ruling. “Thanks to his mother he rarely saw himself as disabled... He went on to compete against able-bodied athletes — that image remains obscured in the background. In my judgement the correct thing would be to balance the two.”
Masipa emphasized the importance — indeed the centrality — of mercy in South Africa’s legal system. She invoked the constitution, the central and defining document, which is focused on human rights and restorative justice rather than retribution and vengeance; on a measured compassion in the meting out of justice to those who commit crimes.
The judgement was very fine, but it has not laid Steenkamp’s ghost to rest. The killing was not, in the end, deemed to be a case of femicide. However, this is a crime in which South Africa has frequently proved itself to be world champion, so it is difficult not to refract both the killing and the sentence through the tragic lens of domestic violence.
South Africa is a patriarchal society too often blighted by violently misogynistic behavior. Despite the existence of laws that guarantee the rights of women (and their children) — including their right to life — these are violated on a daily basis. So how is one to read this five-year sentence? How to hear the “mercy” in that sentence rather than a judicial slap on the wrist for a man who acted with such astonishing negligence that his girlfriend ended up dead on the bathroom floor?
Pistorius’ defense was that he was beset by an “understandable” and “overwhelming” fear of crime — a fear so great that it rendered him incapable of even the most basic thought and consideration.
The judge cited two cases in her judgement, both of them of men who shot at what they thought were intruders. In both cases, an innocent person, a family member, ended up dead. The judge used the sentencing in both of these cases as measures for the sentence she gave Pistorius.
What remained unexamined is the acceptance of this overwhelmingly violent fight response to a perceived threat as a life-threatening social pattern. For there are many more such cases of such violent, domestic, accidental killings. No one would deny that there are very high levels of violent crime in South Africa; however, the irrational fear and the violence that so often accompanies it was not addressed by the judgement and the sentence.
There is a pattern in these “accidental” domestic shootings that requires consideration. The judge accepted Pistorius’ claim that the shooting was an accident, but the origin of this “accident” is important. A society that lauds men who act before they think, that accepts and forgives men who act before they think, is at odds with the carefully constructed edifice that is the rule of law — in South Africa’s case, a law based on one of the most progressive constitutions in the world.
The trial, the judgement and the sentence reveals, in this explosively familial setting, the gulf between the law — the superego, if you will, of the society we live in, and its unreformed identification that is governed by the unexamined impulses of fear and aggression. It is this gulf that creates the volcanic fault line that erupts with alarming frequency and destroys so many lives each year.
Masipa’s judgement was humane and expansive, but it provides little comfort for observers when bestowed on a person who showed none of this thoughtful mercy. The arguments for rehabilitation of offenders and reintegration into society are important, but how this will be achieved is hard to imagine in a man who never took full responsibility for his actions.
The claim that this was an accident persuaded the judge — as much as the failure of the state to prove intent to kill — but if one places a glass on the edge of the table, it is bound to fall and smash. It might well be an accident, but it was not that hard to predict. Much the same, I would argue, that firing four bullets into a tiny bathroom cubicle would result in the fatal wounding of the person on the other side of that door.
This trial leaves one with a feeling of unease.
As South African journalist Alex Eliseeve, who covered the case from the outset, tweeted: “The sentence fits the conviction. Question is, does the conviction fit the crime.”
The prosecution has not yet decided if the state plans to appeal — it has two weeks to decide — but both conviction and sentence have stirred an enormous amount of emotion.
The persistent claims by Pistorius’ defense that he had lost everything were hard to stomach. However, the social narrative is written by the living, not the dead. It is Pistorius that people have to live with, not Steenkamp. The gift that Masipa gave was a way of looking at this deeply flawed man with mercy — not a principle that has guided South Africa through most of its history. It certainly is a principle — infused with the notions of forgiveness that guided South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission — that is in short supply. In the Pandora’s box of ills that this trial opened, it might be the only hope we have.
Margie Orford is a novelist, president of PEN South Africa and the patron of Rape Crisis.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath