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.

Oscar Pistorius, the South African Olympian and double-amputee known as “Blade Runner,” was released from prison last week. In October of 2014 he was found guilty of killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, and sentenced to five years in prison. Pistorius was charged with culpable homicide as opposed to manslaughter, a crime which would have merited more jail time.

Pause for a reminder: Pistorius claimed that the day he “accidentally” killed Steenkamp, he mistook her for an intruder. Pistorius killed Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day. Steenkamp was set to give a speech on domestic abuse the day she was killed.

Needless to say, many South Africans (including Steenkamp’s family) do not believe that the athlete mistakenly shot his model/reality star girlfriend. They believe the killing was intentional, and that Pistorius got caught up in his own lies.

Elements of Pistorius’ testimony did not add up with forensic analysts’ findings. According to BBC:

A forensic analyst contradicted Mr Pistorius’ claim that he was wearing his artificial legs when he tried to break open the toilet door with a cricket bat after realising Ms Steenkamp was inside. Police Colonel Johannes Vermeulen said the angle and location of the marks on the door suggested Mr Pistorius was on his stumps.

If Pistorius lied about not having his prosthetics on, what else did he lie about? Why did he shoot his firearm multiple times if he thought the noises he heard were just an intruder?

Thankfully, Pistorius will not have access to firearms while on house arrest in (ahem) his uncle’s tricked-out mansion. He is also required to attend regular counseling sessions, so long as he is “doing time”–which, as of now, means four more years.

To the American mind, it seems crazy that a man found guilty of being involved in the death of his girlfriend could possibly receive such a lenient sentence. However, under South African law, “an offender sentenced to five years or less in jail can be released to correctional supervision after serving one-sixth of the term—in Pistorius’ case 10 months.” Indeed, Pistorius has served a bit more than one-sixth of his sentence, so it should not come as a shock that he has been released from Kgosi Mampuru II jail in Pretoria, where he was being held.

What should come as a shock is that Pistorius was held in the hospital section of the jail, rather than in the cells with the other 7,000 inmates who are not celebrities or well-known athletes. As past Law Street articles have stated, it is problematic when a celebrity uses his or her status to acquire special treatment while incarcerated. Yes, it is true that Pistorius would have needed additional medical support as an imprisoned double-amputee in jail. However, he received preferential treatment as a celebrity athlete, which unjustly separated him from the rest of the prison community.

Additionally, Pistorius was released a full day earlier than what was announced by the State Department, in order to avoid a media firestorm. Surely no other prisoner would have been afforded the luxury of a 24-hour head-start after their release was already announced. It’s time for South Africa to re-assess its court procedures when dealing with high-profile suspects and prisoners. (Heck, it should also consider overturning the 1969 law that abolished trial by jury.) But hey, some countries have to walk before they can run like a convicted Olympian.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oscar Pistorius Leaves Prison to Chill at Uncle’s House in South Africa 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.