Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

CNN’s Anderson Cooper Grills Florida Attorney General

Anderson Cooper got up in Florida AG Pam Bondi’s face about her perceived hypocrisy following the Orlando shooting. Bondi certainly had her feathers ruffled and was very much unable to explain herself when Cooper asked why she claimed to be a champion for gay and lesbians even though her Twitter feed was littered with posts supporting animal rights, and she argued against gay marriage in court. Woof!

.@andersoncooper grills Florida AG Pam Bondi over gay rights record https://t.co/KYvuZ7srCP https://t.co/pGTkx0KVkN

— CNN (@CNN) June 14, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 15, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Former double-amputee Olympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius is a “broken man” and is unfit to testify at his sentencing for murder, according to the defense’s clinical psychologist. Today marks the last week of Pistorius’ highly publicized sentencing trial in South Africa, and a final sentence will be announced by Friday.

Dr. Jonathan Scholtz said Pistorius suffered from anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress syndrome, and putting him in jail would only worsen his mental state. Instead, Scholtz suggested that Pistorius be sentenced to community service or be hospitalized.

“Since the offence he has developed a serious psychiatric condition which has become worse over the past two years,” Scholtz said. He also argued that Pistorius did not pose a threat to society, and further incarceration “would not be psychologically or socially constructive.”

Here is a play-by-play of the hearing:

Oscar Pistorius is ‘broken’ and should be in hospital, sentencing hearing told https://t.co/p42Avg8KM4

— Guardian news (@guardiannews) June 13, 2016

In case you missed it, Pistorius was sentenced in 2013 for killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day. He said he thought she was an intruder–shooting her through the bathroom door four times.

Since the incident, Pistorius has sold all of his firearms and is still traumatized by the sound of them, according to Scholtz. The prosecution didn’t buy it. Chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel suggested that Pistorius felt sorry for himself and had not shown true remorse. Nel also questioned Scholtz’s claim that Pistorius was unfit to testify, stating he was perfectly fine to do an interview recently with a local television station about the killing.

Pistorius received some harsh backlash on Twitter for being labeled as unfit to testify.

Dear @OscarPistorius me and most people I know have ‘not being rich anxiety disorder’. Please give us your money to help us overcome this

— Will Black (@WillBlackWriter) June 13, 2016

So murderers (Oscar Pistorius) and rapists (Brock Turner) shouldn’t go to jail bc it’ll impact them emotionally. When did jail become a spa?

— AL (@MissSchliez) June 13, 2016

Pistorius was charged with culpable homicide in October 2014, which carries a five year sentence and is similar to manslaughter in the United States. After serving a year in prison, he was released on house arrest. However, because of his athlete-celebrity status, he was unsurprisingly not treated the same as the rest of the prisoners. During his time in jail, he stayed  in a private cell in the hospital wing and he spent his time on house arrest kicking it at his uncle’s mansion. In December 2015, his conviction was changed to murder in the Supreme Court of Appeals, which decided that whoever was behind the door was irrelevant because Pistorius should have known that pulling the trigger would cause death.

The minimum sentence for murder in South Africa is 15 years, but a judge can pare it down depending on the circumstances. Prosecutors and Steenkamp’s family argued at the trial that Pistorius deliberately killed her after an argument, so they are working to ensure he receives the full 15 year punishment. However, Scholtz described Pistorius’s relationship with his girlfriend as “normal” and “loving” with “no signs of abuse or coercion.” Pistorius tried to overturn the upgraded murder charge earlier this year, but failed, which is why a new sentencing hearing was called this week.

Steenkamp was 29 when she was killed, an up-and-coming model, a law school graduate, and a budding reality TV star.

Pistorius, known as the “Blade Runner” for his carbon-fiber prosthetic legs, is known globally for being able to compete against able-bodied athletes, especially during the 2012 London Olympics. He has also competed in three Paralympics.

Judge Thokozile Masipa is presiding over the hearing—the same judge who originally convicted Pistorius.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Defense Psychologist Calls Oscar Pistorius A “Broken Man,” Unfit To Testify appeared first on Law Street.

The case of Oscar Pistorius, the world-famous South African Olympic and Paralympic athlete, has been highly contentious since its beginning. On Valentine’s Day 2013, Pistorius shot his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, in his home, through a locked bathroom door. His defense team claimed he thought she was an intruder and was trying to defend himself. What followed was a flurry of speculation over whether or not the fatal shooting was an accident or intentional; the case was only made even more public by Pistorius’s star status. In 2014, Pistorius was found guilty of culpable homicide–essentially manslaughter. But the prosecutors argued that a culpable homicide verdict didn’t go far enough, and an appeals court just overturned that decision to instead find Pistorius guilty of murder. Now, the sprinter is most likely headed back to prison, and the case may be headed further down the line to South Africa’s Constitutional Court.

The appeal that landed Pistorius back in prison is as seemingly complicated as the case itself. The appeals court that overturned the culpable homicide charge and instead found Pistorius guilty of murder didn’t have an issue with the lower court’s interpretation of the facts of the case, but rather its interpretation of the law. Whether or not Pistorius was guilty or not rested on a concept in the South African justice system called dolus eventualis. It’s defined as “awareness of the likely outcome of an action”–essentially, did Pistorius know what was going to happen when he shot into that bathroom door.

The original court judgment ruled that because he didn’t know that it was Steenkamp behind the door, dolus eventualis didn’t apply. But Judge Eric Leach, of South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal, ruled that that judgment was a misinterpretation of the legal principle. According to Leach, it didn’t matter if Pistorius knew that it was Steenkamp behind that door, it matters that he knew someone was behind that door, and firing into would likely result in the death of that person. According to CNN:

It was ‘common sense’ that Pistorius must have known he was carrying out a potentially lethal act that ‘gambled with life’ when he fired his gun through the closed toilet door, [Leach] said.

Now, Pistorius’s team may take the case to the next level for one final appeal in front of the highest court in South Africa–the Constitutional Court. In the meantime, he’s expected to remain under the house arrest he was released to this fall while he waits for a new sentencing hearing. Given that the minimum sentence in South Africa for murder is fifteen years, he could be going back to prison for a very long time.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oscar Pistorius Found Guilty of Murder by South African Appeals Court appeared first on Law Street.

Time and time again, celebrities have evaded prison sentences because they claimed to be too fragile for life behind bars. In the case of recently tried and convicted Olympian Oscar Pistorius, he may be able to serve just ten months of his five-year maximum for shooting and killing his then-girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. After those ten months, he can request to be moved to house arrest in his mansion. That’s a rough life right there.

In Pistorious’ case, it’s a bit tricky. He is a double-amputee, and because of this, many claim that prison is simply not suitable for him. Nooshin Erfani-Ghadimi, project coordinator for the Wits Justice Project, a civil society group, said before the sentencing that she believed Pistorius would probably receive far better treatment than the average prisoner and has throughout the entire judicial process thus far. However, she also noted “I don’t think anyone with a disability necessarily will be able to be provided for at the moment in a way that ensures that they would have the correct medical treatment, that they have the correct physical structures.”

Pistorius’ prosthetic limbs are not the only issue. Health risks such as tuberculosis are often cited as a problem in South African prisons due to poor air circulation, and many fear that he will be susceptible to contracting the illness. Some believe that his celebrity status will make him a target for gang violence.

While defending his client, Pistorius’ attorney, Barry Roux, argued that there is extreme overcrowding in South African prisons. This point is irrelevant, however, as his celebrity status would easily prevent him from sharing a cell. The other health fears such as inmates not receiving their medication because of the inadequate number of health workers in prisons are unlikely to be of valid concern. He is a celebrity. History shows that celebrities receive special treatment in prison.

Efraini-Ghadimi conceded that South African law has policies for accommodating physically disabled inmates. Zach Modise, acting National Commissioner of Correctional Services, pointed out that there are 128 disabled inmates currently doing time and therefore prisons are properly equipped with the appropriate facilities.

Currently, Pistorius is living in a single cell with everything he needs along with access to the medical care for any ailments both physical and psychological. In ten months, he will likely be permitted to move to his home in the Silver Woods Estate in Pretoria.

This case is undoubtedly tricky. If Pistorius did not have his celebrity status, his prison sentence would be of greater concerned because it would mean less special treatment behind bars. For example, a paraplegic man, Ronnie Fakude, struggled with very real concerns while serving a prison sentence; however, he did not enjoy the status as a famous individual the way that Pistorius does.

Just because you are in the media spotlight doesn’t make it okay to commit crimes, and hopefully this case will shed light on that fact, even though he is getting off relatively easily. Even Arnold Pistorius, Oscar’s uncle, said that the family accepted Oscar’s sentence and viewed it as a way for his nephew to pay back society. Perhaps in ten short months Mr. Pistorius can relax in the comfort of his own home again. Only time will tell…

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pistorius Can Opt for House Arrest in Just 10 Months appeared first on Law Street.

The strange, long, and twisted tale that was the death of Reeva Steenkamp, girlfriend of Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius, has started to reach its close. Pistorius was found guilty of culpable homicide in the Steenkamp case.

Oscar Pistorius is a South American athlete who made history by being the first double amputee in the Olympic Games, and has an incredibly impressive Paralympics resume.

But on the morning of February 14, 2013, that all changed. Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp through the locked bathroom door. She was a South African model, and the pair had been dating for three months. Pistorius admitted from the beginning that he had shot her, but claimed that he had thought that she was an intruder.

The facts that came out during the subsequent trial were dark. In addition to the being put on trial for killing Steenkamp, Pistorius also faced two charges for illegal handling of his firearms, and a fourth charge for illegal possession of some of the ammunition that was found in his home after Steenkamp was killed.

During the trial, a break was taken so that Pistorius could be evaluated by doctors and receive a psychiatric evaluation. He has been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder, which was used by the defense to explain his concern about an intruder in his home on the morning of February 14. Merryll Vorster, a forensic psychiatrist who testified during the trial, explained that Pistorious’ anxiety disorder was most likely why he always slept with a firearm under his pillow. Vorster also explained that Pistorius did not have his prosthetics on when he shot at the door, indicating that a fight mechanism may have been ignited in Pistorious — he literally could not flee.

Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa stated on Thursday that Pistorius was not going to be found guilty of murder, but left the other charges for Friday.

The culpable homicide verdict, announced Friday, translated into American justice system terms, essentially means that he was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. He acted negligently when he shot four shots through his closed door without knowing who or what was on the other side. He won’t actually be sentenced until next month, and what his sentence will actually end up being has a huge range. He could serve up to fifteen years in prison, or a sentence that is significantly shorter. Judge Masipa has received significant criticism for her ruling.

Given that no one will really ever know what happened in Pistorius’ house that fated Valentine’s Day morning, the verdict is understandable. Yet there is still a lot of backlash from those who believe it’s not quite enough. And Pistorious’ actions after receiving the verdict don’t do too much to help him. He has said that he’s going to write a book to tell his side of the story, and the South African Olympic Committee has said he is free to run again once he finishes his sentence.

However, the good thing about these much-watched celebrity trials is that occasionally they are high-profile enough to create a national conversation. As Steenkamp’s father put it:

This case in a very strange way has opened a window into people’s lives in South Africa, the way they feel they need to defend themselves with extreme force. People need to think about this.

The story was disturbing, the trial concerning, and the death of Steenkamp incredibly tragic. Yet trials like this do have the opportunity to say something for a nation; hopefully South Africa is listening.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pistorius Verdict Opens Dialogue About Defense, But is South Africa Listening? appeared first on Law Street.

Eleven days of  evidence have finished in Oscar Pistorius’ murder trial and still it’s difficult to ascertain the track star’s guilt. Some speculate that the national icon will walk, while the public is reluctant to call him innocent. Will his fame influence the finding in his case? Attorneys and bloggers alike speculate that athletes skirt the criminal justice system because of their fame. But is that true? Let’s take a look at some examples.

Donté Stallworth tends to be exhibit A for those who believe athletes get off lightly in the criminal justice system.  In March 2009, Stallworth struck and killed a pedestrian in Miami Beach, Fla. after admitting he drank alcohol earlier in the night. Stallworth served only 30 days in jail as part of a plea bargain, a sentence inciting ire from many who say athletes live in a privileged world. But Stallworth’s sentence may have been the result of circumstances lacking the typical repugnance of a DUI manslaughter case, rather than the result of his fame. Sources claimed Stallworth’s victim, Mario Reyes, was running across the busy road when Stallworth made contact with him. Stallworth also stopped and immediately dialed 911. He reached financial settlement with Reyes’ family rather than drag out proceedings in civil court. Criminal attorneys would probably wager these facts were more integral to Stallworth’s plea deal than his fame.

Mark Ingram Sr. was a star NFL receiver in the 1990s, but has since been charged with money laundering and bank fraud. In January 2009, Ingram Sr. failed to report to authorities to begin his federal prison term, instead deciding to watch his son, former Alabama running back Mark Ingram Jr., play in the 2009 Sugar Bowl. The decision to watch his son play cost Ingram Sr. two more years in prison, although U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Platt seemed to issue the elongated sentence begrudgingly.

Plenty more athletes have earned both long and short sentences for committing crimes. The difference maker in many of these cases may be the factor that often coincides with their success: money. Higher socioeconomic standing has long been found to impact the criminal justice system, but the relationship may be more closely followed now than ever before following the Texas “affluenza” case and the growth of private prisons.

Pistorius’ case could be the latest example of how wealth aids criminal defendants. The “blade runner” has amassed a legal bill that few could pay, but fortunately for Pistorius, he and his family can afford it.

—-

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post Countdown to Blade Runner Verdict: Will Money or Fame Make an Impact? appeared first on Law Street.