nickie on 11/9/2014 at 20:17
I started watching this, this morning. And it when on for a few hours, with a break or two here or there, with the judge reading through her conclusions, eventually getting to the point where he was found not guilty of the murder charges. Then they had a 5 minute break which stretched on, then the lawyers went off to judge's chambers, came back, the judge read a bit more and then finished about 2.00 this afternoon. So what's left is culpable homicide and a gun charge and a possessing illegal ammunition charge. Consensus of opinion last time I looked was that he would be found guilty of culpable homicide.
It took about 3 hours (felt like it anyway) to get to the point of telling him he was not guilty of murder. And he's been left hanging on the homicide charge with several hours left in the day. I'm not at all used to this as in the UK, the jury go and deliberate and come back and a verdict is delivered immediately. No hours of waiting and waiting when you know the verdict has been made but the defendant has to sit through all the ramble first before they hear the verdict.
I think the US system is similar to ours but I'm not sure about other countries. This method of making someone wait for hours seems to be slightly bizarre and somewhat cruel although that's a bit stronger than I mean.
I'm not offering any opinion as to Pistorius' guilt or innocence as that's not the point of this. I'm just wondering what the rationale is. And do other countries have similar systems?
Renault on 11/9/2014 at 20:34
Yeah, it's pretty much the same over here in the U.S. The jury deliberates, when they reach a verdict they signal the judge, court reconvenes, and they read it. Very straightforward.
Or maybe I've just been watching too much Law & Order.
Tomi on 11/9/2014 at 22:13
It's all about entertainment and drama. The whole world is following the trial, and just like with all reality shows, they like to keep you in suspense for a little bit longer by having a cliffhanger like this. Had it been some Joe Nobody who shot his girlfriend at home, I'm pretty sure that they'd have reached the verdict a long time ago already.
Kolya on 11/9/2014 at 23:49
For what it's worth, I read in the newspaper that this is the normal proceeding there, to read out the reasoning first and then the verdict. Pretty sure it's the other way around here in Germany as well.
demagogue on 12/9/2014 at 03:04
I believe sometimes in the US the jury can take days to deliberate for a complex case.
Also the cases themselves can take weeks to months of constant stress, so a few hours is kind of a drop in the bucket by comparison.
Edit: Oops, sorry, you're talking about just reading the verdict. Well for complex cases it's not uncommon for that to take hours too, and the verdict can come at the end because you have to establish everything in a certain order by law. My basic point before still basically stands though.
The last tv trial I watched was the Casey Anthony trial. When she was acquitted in the end it was a sickening moment, because the prosecution had clinched the case so solidly. As it turned out, the jurors never really doubted that she killed her child, but because they didn't know how she did it exactly, they didn't feel comfortable checking the boxes of the elements of the crime. It's like avoiding a justified 40 year sentence on a technicality. Blugh.
Shayde on 12/9/2014 at 07:51
Kolya is right, this is standard practice here. The more convoluted and lengthy the case, the longer it takes the judge to unpack their decision before giving the verdict.
It is a way to publicly demonstrate that they have considered every element of the case before applying the law.
With the way our courts were used during apartheid the desire for transparency is understandable.
henke on 12/9/2014 at 08:55
Oh god 6 posts and nothing but talk about the legal system, come on people DID HE DO IT OR NOT? I mean, I'm not sure, but I'm hoping someone will make a good case in either direction and make my mind up for me.
Ok fine I'll go first.
I was reading an article about this whole thing in Wired a while back and they made some pretty convincing arguments that he could indeed have thought it was a home invader he was shooting at. So yeah... my opinion is that he maybe is innocent! Or maybe not! I DONT KNOW OK THIS IS WHY I DIDNT WANT TO GO FIRST
nickie on 12/9/2014 at 12:18
:) I didn't want him to be guilty of anything. I still feel a bit shocked, I think he was such an inspiration although coming across as a bit arrogant. Not that I really know anything about him, I just remember the first time I saw him run and thought it was amazing. (I see Oscar's father is called Henke. Edit. It now seems he's called Hanke.)
Quote Posted by Tomi
The whole world is following the trial, and just like with all reality shows, they like to keep you in suspense for a little bit longer by having a cliffhanger like this. Had it been some Joe Nobody who shot his girlfriend at home, I'm pretty sure that they'd have reached the verdict a long time ago already.
Well the judge did say that the trial could have been done in a week. But I don't think it was a cliffhanger, that would have been if they'd closed before finding him not guilty of murder. I've been a prosecution witness 3 times and a defence witness once. No way would I have ever agreed to be a witness if I thought the trials would be televised. Horrible practice.
Quote Posted by Shayde
. . . It is a way to publicly demonstrate that they have considered every element of the case before applying the law.
With the way our courts were used during apartheid the desire for transparency is understandable.
I understand that but wonder why they can't do it the other way around, give the verdict then the reasoning (although our magistrates court does things the same way, only quicker). Or do they think people won't bother listening. It was only a couple of hours this morning before finishing up with guilty of one gun offence and guilty of culplable homicide. Then another hour's wait to decide on whether to give him bail or not till sentencing mid October. Why does sentencing take so long - why haven't they made up their minds in advance. They knew what the verdict was ages ago. In a jury trial, they don't know what the verdict is going to be so it's understandable if they have a gap between verdict and sentence.
I thought the judge was good though.
I know it's not really the done thing to be glad someone has died but perhaps it's OK to make an exception in the case of Ian Paisley.
Kolya on 12/9/2014 at 12:30
Quote Posted by henke
DID HE DO IT OR NOT?
I think there's no doubt, that he did it. About his intentions when he shot his girlfriend through a toilet door no one will ever know.
But I sure hope this will haunt him for the rest of his days, because regardless of intention, you just don't shoot at people on the toilet. Toilets should be safe places where the mind can drift and the individual is the sole ruler over his small kingdom for such a short moment in time. Ach.
henke on 12/9/2014 at 13:34
Quote Posted by Kolya
I think there's no doubt, that he did it. About his intentions when he shot his girlfriend through a toilet door no one will ever know.
Well yeah, "did he shoot his girlfriend on purpose" was my meaning.
Quote Posted by nickie
I didn't want him to be guilty of anything.
Yup, I'm with you there. The guy certainly was an inspiration. An shining example of what humanity can achieve even despite adversity. I want him to not have done it intentionally, but also I feel like it won't matter much at this point. The whole shooting thing, whether it was an accident or on purpose, casts a black shadow over his legacy. Such a goddamn shame.
