He’s recently in the news for his early parole, but to my mind his conviction for murder was probably unjust.

  1. The prosecution was not able to rebut his testimony that he fired on what he thought was a burglar in his home. This was a reasonable fear - Pistorius is a double amputee despite his Olympic medals, and he lived in a neighborhood that was particularly attractive to break-in robberies due to the residents’ wealth.

  2. The prosecution could not provide a motive for murder - the best they could speculate was that they had had an argument, but the prosecution could not provide details of any supposed argument, nor substantiate it from the testimony of any witnesses who actually would have been able to hear it.

  3. It probably was negligent and contributory to have fired on an “attacker” he could not see, but conversely, had he intended to murder his girlfriend during a spontaneous argument, there’s no reason for him to have taken the risk of firing through a door in order to do so.

The traditional elements of the crime of murder are means, motive, and opportunity. Two of these are stipulated since, by the defense account, Pistorius fired the gun that killed Reeva Steenkamp The prosecution’s argument for motive was specious speculation at best, and Pistorius’ judicial conviction on appeal represents a miscarriage of justice since there was really no reason given to reject his defense. His original conviction of culpable homicide and reckless endangerment was correct and shouldn’t have been appealed.

  • crashfrog@lemm.eeOP
    1·
    1 year ago

    You’ve made up your mind that it was a mistaken intruder.

    Yes, on the basis of what I know about the crime it’s extremely obvious that he shot what he mistook as an intruder, and extremely obvious that he did not engage in a plot to murder his girlfriend for no known reason.

    But note that I don’t actually have to believe this to conclude that his conviction was unjust. Conviction must result from belief in his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and since his explanation is exculpatory of murder, if you can’t rebut it beyond reasonable doubt, you cannot convict. Defendants in trials are the ones afforded benefit of the doubt, not prosecutors.

    And considering only he can know that for sure, I think that’s the only reasonable conclusion you can draw.

    Right, but then you agree with my position; it was unjust for him to have been convicted of murder because we can’t possibly know that he committed murder.

    I certainly have no interest in debating all of these hypothetical motives he could have had.

    I have no intention of requiring you to. But motive is a necessity for the crime of murder, because murder is the intentional killing of a person, and motive goes to intent.