When in doubt for the accused

Sentencing South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius, Judge Thokozile Masipa was as imperturbable as ever. She gave him five years for killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp and a three year suspended term for "gross negligence" in the use of a firearm. With good conduct, Pistorius could be out of prison within ten months and serve the remainder under house arrest, legal experts say. Masipa was as dispassionate and objective in deciding on a sentence for Pistorius as she was in presiding over his trial.

The prosecution had called for a ten year jail term, the defense for house arrest. The sentence handed down by Masipa lay equidistant from both. She said a non-custodial sentence would have been too light - have sent the wrong message to the community - but a heavier sentence would have lacked the element of mercy.

Right down the middle

Right down the middle between defense and prosecution - this sentence was just. Pistorius may have been a narcissistic womanizer obsessed with firearms, but it could not be proved that he had killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in cold blood. Even if self-appointed legal experts in South Africa and elsewhere dismissed his weeping and vomiting in court and his grief as a sham, the court clearly and rightfully did not share this view. Oscar Pistorius showed remorse for his deed and the law stipulates that this be taken into account when passing sentence.

When in doubt favor the accused - that sums up both conviction and sentence in this case. It will probably not make the judge very popular among South Africans. Some may even be infuriated by it. "Rich white man buys his way out of a heavy prison term with the help of a good defense team" may well be the reaction heard in some quarters.

Slipshod detective work

But such arguments about morals cannot be permitted to influence a court of law. Narcissism or a foible for weapons is not a criminal offence. They are therefore no reason to hand down a heavier sentence. The court was also not permitted to take Pistorius' deep pockets and defense into account. Only evidence and witness testimony count.

Criticism of South Africa's police force would be more appropriate than any complaints about the court. An investigator picked up the weapon used in the killing with his bare hands, a prosecutor strolled through the scene of the crime in his everyday shoes and a police officer stole a watch.

If the investigators had been more conscientious and had been able to produce stronger evidence against Pistorius, then it is conceivable that the court could have handed down a different verdict or sentence. South Africans should insist that their entire police and judicial apparatus be reformed so that more people can benefit from a trial that was as a fair as the one just experienced by Oscar Pistorius.