South Africa. A joke.

[mistermack]

What the hell is wrong in South Africa?
The legal system would embarrass a banana republic.

Oscar Pistorius got found not guilty of murder by a woman judge, who was either paid off, or incompetent.
The prosecution appeals, and the appeal court says that the judge got it wrong.
DIDN'T SHE EVER !! ( I think she got a payoff ).

So what happens? The case is sent back to the SAME crooked or incompetent judge, for sentencing for murder. And the normal sentence for murder is fifteen years. She gave him SIX.
(of which he will actually serve just a bit over one year in a prison).
As she originally gave him five years, for the culpable homicide, she's only given him one extra year, as the difference between an accident, and a deliberate murder.
So she can probably keep the original bribe, and collect another fat wad.

In June 2015, Pistorius was recommended for early release as early as August. South African Commissioner of Correctional Services Zach Modise told the BBC of the decision by the case management committee at the Kgosi Mampuru II prison in Pretoria, where Pistorius was being held: "Under South African law he is eligible for release under 'correctional supervision' having served a sixth of his sentence."[166]

At the very most, he will serve a couple of months more inside.
It's a great country, if you have money.

I've never been in favour of the death penalty. But I'd make an exception for Pistorius.
And his friend the judge.

Hopefully, the prosecution will now appeal the sentence. If there's any justice left in the shithole.

[Sælir]

I don't really understand how the public always seems to be able to judge everything better than employees of the legal system anywhere in the world

I mean... we do read the paper! Or... at least the headlines! So I am sure we can take an informed decision from that

[mistermack]

I don't really understand how the public always seems to be able to judge everything better than employees of the legal system anywhere in the world

I mean... we do read the paper! Or... at least the headlines! So I am sure we can take an informed decision from that

Well, I said at the time that her original verdict was bollocks. And I have been proved right.
Funny isn't it ??? And I didn't need to rehear the whole case. It was obvious right from the start.

Maybe I'm a legal genius? They should headhunt me. I could have saved them an entire appeal procedure.
We'll see if this sentence gets appealed.

But one thing should be obvious, even to YOU.
The same judge who got it so wrong, shouldn't be involved in any way, from that moment on.
Let alone be allowed to decide on the sentence.
Any moron should be able to see that.

[Sælir]

I actually don't think she got it wrong in the first place

[mistermack]

I actually don't think she got it wrong in the first place

I don't really understand how the public always seems to be able to judge everything better than the court of appeal anywhere in the world

I mean... we do read the paper! Or... at least the headlines! So I am sure we can take an informed decision from that

[Sælir]

I actually don't think she got it wrong in the first place

I don't really understand how the public always seems to be able to judge everything better than the court of appeal anywhere in the world

I mean... we do read the paper! Or... at least the headlines! So I am sure we can take an informed decision from that

I did not attack the legal system of a country, the court or the court of appeal so nowhere did I say that I knew better.
You on the other hand did.

I just stated my opinion that I though the judge was right the first time. I did not say anything else.

[mistermack]

So you live in some imaginary world, where she got it right, and the court of appeal got it right as well?

It must be cosy in there.

[Sælir]

So you live in some imaginary world, where she got it right, and the court of appeal got it right as well?

It must be cosy in there.

No, my opinion is that she got it right.
The fact is that the case was appealed.

I am not a part of the justice system, especially not in S-Africa since I have never been there.
My opinion has absolutely nothing to do with the case.

Is this difficult to understand?

[Svartalf]

problem is
a) nobody beyond pistorius himslef and maybe his lawyers will ever really know what happened
b) any possible doubt must benefit the defender

so convicting him of wrongful killing is indeed what should have happened, and it's the appeals court that got it wrong.

[cronus]

He's suffered enough. And for what? Being at the scene of the crime when it happened. But in this world is that the same thing as guilt? He's never denied shooting at what he thought was a burglar. No one can see through a solid door. And what would you do? Wait for the door to open in a country with such a high murder rate? It's obviously manslaughter.

[mistermack]

My opinion has absolutely nothing to do with the case reality.

problem is
b) any possible doubt must benefit the defender

Wrong.

[Svartalf]

Okay, you obviously have no understanding of Western style justice systems, good bye.

[mistermack]

He's suffered enough. And for what? Being at the scene of the crime when it happened. But in this world is that the same thing as guilt? He's never denied shooting at what he thought was a burglar. No one can see through a solid door. And what would you do? Wait for the door to open in a country with such a high murder rate? It's obviously manslaughter.

That's just silly.
It applies to any locked toilet door in the country.

And virtually any situation, where you can't clearly see someone.
It's licence to kill on a vast scale. There would be a lot of wives out there getting mistaken for a burglar.
And husbands.

[mistermack]

Okay, you obviously have no understanding of Western style justice systems, good bye.

You need to check your facts.

[Sælir]

Mistermack, you are one hilarious dude