Anyone that has been following the news in anyway has most likely heard of Oscar Pistorius. If not, let me get you up to speed. Oscar Pistorius has been sentenced to 5 years prison for shooting and killing his girlfriend at the time, Reeva Steenkamp. Pistorius claimed he heard what he thought was a trespasser in his bathroom and grabbed his gun and fired shots through the bathroom door, hitting and killing Reeva. Although this incident occurred back in February of 2009, the trial has only recently ended in recent months. This article was extremely interesting to me as it was such a high profile and intense trial and no one other than Oscar really knows what actually happened. The final verdict delivered by the judge was that although Oscar no doubt shot and killed Reeva, It was unintentional and cannot be considered planned murder.
What i am interested in is how we can justify that someones life is worth five years in prison. It might have been unintentional, but the cost is a loss of a life, and the resulting mourning of the family. How the judge come to the decision to sentence Oscar to 5 years in prison? Do you think this was a reasonable sentence? Does his disability give him an advantage in this trial? This last question is one i would like to address. Oscar Pistorius is famous for being the "fastest man on no legs" or "the blade runner" as he is a double amputee below the knee but competes at a higher level with full bodied athletes. Would his athletic abilities give him less of an advantage over a normal double amputee in the same situation? will he be sentenced to an equal trial to an able bodied individual? Its a very insightful and interesting trial that raised a lot of controversy over his light sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment