UKC

I'm liking the way this Pristorious verdict is being delivered...

The Judge is setting out the considerations taken of the evidence, why some is discounted and the conclusion that is slowly leading to whatever the end verdict is.

This seems to be much more satisfactory for all involved compared to our UK system where it's basically a closed shop in the Jury room and all you hear is the outcome followed by the judges deliberations on sentencing and mitigating/agravating factors etc.

I also like the fact that the deliberation is made by 3 qualified judges rather than a Jury of laymen (thereby avoiding the Jury bias we have in the uk - where the Jury can often sympathise with the defendent(or victim) for example with a dangerous car driver because we all have to drive cars)


What do others think?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

There is a saying amongst lawyers. If you are guilty ask for a jury; if you are innocent ask for a judge.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Several SA friends indicated, as soon as he was arrested, that he'd go free. SA justice operates in a very particular way, they said

In reply to Greenbanks:

As in he's rich and famous and will therefore get off? or is this a race thing?

In reply to Greenbanks:

Particular is in you have to actually prove the charge before someone is found guilty? My money was always on culpable homicide - we'll see.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

There's no running away from the verdict tomorrow.













I'll get my coat.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I agree, but seeing as the verdict is already decided, wouldn't it be kinder all round to deliver the verdict, then set out the reasons?

At the moment it all seems a bit "guilty or not guilty... find out after the break"

In reply to XXXX:

There already seems to be some disbelief among lawyers in SA that he has not been found guilty of dolus eventualis (responsibility for foreseeable consequences) - which apparently is equivalent to 'common murder' as opposed to 'premeditated murder'.

In reply to XXXX:

One complication is that he was charged specifically with the murder of Reeva S, and not a broader charge of murder (of an intruder etc.) Looking like a technical ballsup on part of prosecution ? ?

In reply to XXXX:

... tho Masipa did seem to rule out that (common murder) alternative too.

In reply to balmybaldwin:
Whereas judges don't drive cars? (see recent magitrates court decisions for dangerous driving etc)

In reply to XXXX:

Mate at work compared it to Who Wants to be a Millionaire.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Hard to see how you can be general when you have the dead body of the person.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:


Common murder, I think, covers cases where the accused did not know who the victim was. In this case Masipa has accepted that Pistorius did not know that it was Reeva who was in the loo.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Gotcha-style headline in The Star:

"Will Oscar Walk?"

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

But he clearly did know the victim.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

No, his defence, which the judge accepted, was that he thought there was an unknown intruder in the loo.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Or actually: "Yes he did but his defence, which the judge accepted, was that he thought there was an unknown intruder in the loo."