 |
| Oscar Pistorius, L (Image: ABC News) |
Two weeks ago, I went to see 12 Angry Men in the West End. The show was about twelve members of a jury who had to decide whether a 16-year-old was guilty, or not guilty of murdering his father. If they all agreed to the former decision, the teenager in question would be sent to the electric chair and die. If the jury decided the child wasn't guilty, he'd be given a second chance in life.
The production was set in the 1950s and I'm happy to say that the large chunk of this planet has moved on from giving people the death sentence. Some may disagree with this. However, in my eyes, the show's key theme was the basis of reasonable doubt. The jury had to be absolutely sure that the 16-year-old definitely murdered his father. Initially all-but-one said the teenager is undoubtedly guilty. But as the show progressed, one-by-one, the eleven jury members had their doubts over what really happened the night that father died. Some managed to separate their personal feelings with facts that were interpreted. I thoroughly enjoyed the performance - it had a great cast led by Tom Conti and did the original screenplay justice.
However, watching 12 Angry Men reminded me of the Oscar Pistorius trial which is happening in South Africa at the moment, and has captivated many across the globe. On the 14th February 2013, his fully secured home in Pretoria became a murder scene as Mr Pistorius shot dead his model girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. It was claimed that Pistorius mistook his girlfriend as an intruder in their bathroom and shot behind the door before knowing who was at the other side. The 27-year-old Paralympic sprinting champion, previously considered an inspiration to many, was branded a murderer overnight.
This news shocked the world. Hearing that Mr Pistorius would even consider doing such a thing surprised even me. I cannot imagine how his faithful fans must be feeling at the moment. The last 14 months has seen his reputation truly tarnished. The trial which is investigating this shooting has been subject to public scrutiny. The world has been hooked and debating about the potential verdict, which is not likely to take place any time soon.
The courtroom, which is televised for the world to see, has seen how Reeva Steenkamp was shot in graphic detail. They have also seen witness accounts suggesting that Mr Pistorius has a love for guns, using them in public on several occasions. This is a totally different side to the well-natured sporting prodigy we saw gracing the Olympic Park in London almost two years ago.
The main difference between 12 Angry Men and the Oscar Pistorius trial is that the South African must convince just one person, Judge Thokozile Masipa, whom Pistorius relates to as 'My Lady'. Judge Masipa has a task like no other. She, like the twelve jury members in 12 Angry Men, must have no doubt that Mr Pistorius fully intended to murder his girlfriend. He insists Ms Steenkamp was an intruder, and not Ms Steenkamp, hence the reason why he shot through the bathroom door before checking who was at the other side of the door. Would his key argument convince the Judge?
 |
| Judge Thokozile Masipa (Image: Globalnews.ca) |
Emotions have been running high and the Judge has done well not to give anything away. Only her decision alone would alter one man's life forever. The death penalty isn't an option because this was abolished in South Africa almost 20 years ago, but if she declares that Mr Pistorius is guilty, he could face a very, very long time behind bars. But if she says otherwise, the Paralympian may be relieved, but we all know his life would never be the same again.
I have lost count as to the number of times Mr Pistorius cried, thrown up, or covered his face in distress during this trial. Whether it is all genuine or not, that isn't for us to declare. But I have no reasonable doubt that it will take Mr Pistorius possibly the rest of his life to recover from this experience.
The world will be divided about the verdict. Nobody has to live through Mr Pistorius's experience apart from him. No doubt, on the night of the killing, he fully intended to go out of his bed, pick up his gun and shoot. And as evidence has showed, he has experience in using pistols and was unlikely to miss a target when he pulled the trigger regardless of his view, or lack of it. You can argue Mr Pistorius made a split-second decision and not thought about the consequences that lay upon him. Regardless, his intention was to harm.
It was clear that Mr Pistorius loved his girlfriend and their short-term relationship had its struggles, as like every other relationship. But the model is no longer with us because of what happened that night. But because he found out who he actually killed, you can argue the death was 'accidental' murder. In my eyes, however, murder is still murder. If there was actually an intruder in the bathroom, and Mr Pistorius used his gun to kill, would the situation be the same as now, or would we be arguing that 'he tried to defend himself'? Saying this, it is up to the Judge, on the day of the verdict, to say either 'You killed Ms Steenkamp, plain and simple,' or 'You didn't mean to kill your girlfriend so I'll let you off'. Bearing in mind, if he wanted to kill her, then why make it so obvious that he did the shooting? I don't want to be in the Judge's shoes.
People should realise that the Oscar Pistorius situation is unfortunately not an isolated case but because of his celebrity status, it is in the public interest to know how this trial concludes. The current justice system, not just in South Africa, but in the UK also, has made it difficult on Judges and Juries, depending on the type of court, to declare someone 'Guilty' unless they had a moral perspective on the accused. It is hard to keep an open mind if you have already decided if you like, or dislike the person in the dock. Perception is key but even more important is the law book which has to be respected.
Comments
Post a Comment