Oscar Pistorius should get 10 years in prison, prosecutor says

The former Olympian and Paralympian from South Africa is expected to receive his sentence in the death of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp next week.

Mujahid Safodien/AP
Chief State Prosecutor Gerrie Nel presents his closing arguments in court for the last day of the Oscar Pistorius sentencing hearing in Pretoria, Friday, Oct. 17, 2014. Pistorius' chief defense lawyer Barry Roux was presenting his final arguments Friday to a judge at the end of the double-amputee athlete's sentencing hearing, saying the athlete did not act with any "deviousness" when he killed girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

The chief prosecutor in the Oscar Pistorius trial urged the judge on Friday to send the Olympic athlete to prison for at least 10 years, calling it the minimum acceptable term and noting the horrific nature of the shooting death of Reeva Steenkamp.

Judge Thokozile Masipa is expected to announce Pistorius' sentence on Tuesday. She adjourned court Friday after chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel and chief defense lawyer Barry Roux presented their final arguments for sentencing, summing up the testimony in the weeklong hearing.

Masipa found Pistorius guilty last month of culpable homicide for negligently killing Steenkamp, but acquitted him of murder. Culpable homicide is comparable to manslaughter and Masipa has a wide range of options on Pistorius' sentence. She could issue a suspended jail sentence and a fine, order the 27-year-old Paralympic champion to go under house arrest, or send him to prison for up to 15 years.

Nel said to Judge Masipa: "The minimum term that society will be happy with is 10 years in prison."

It was the first time prosecutors have said what sentence they are seeking for the double-amputee runner for shooting his girlfriend.

"The deceased died in a small cubicle behind a closed door," Nel said. "Three bullets ripped through her body."

Later, Nel said "this is a serious matter. The negligence borders on intent."

Pistorius' chief defense lawyer Roux said the world-famous athlete did not act with any "deviousness" when he killed Steenkamp, and acted while feeling extremely vulnerable and anxious. Pistorius testified he mistook Steenkamp for a dangerous intruder in his home and claimed the shooting was a tragic accident.

"The accused's actions were to some extent dominated by vulnerability and anxiety," Roux said to the red-robed judge who will decide Pistorius' fate. "When you come to sentence ... you have to look at the actions with his frame of mind."

Roux said there was also "no conscious unlawfulness" from Pistorius. He described Pistorius' suffering, both emotional and financial, since the Feb. 14, 2013 shooting.

"He's lost everything," Roux said of Pistorius, once an inspirational figure who became the first amputee to run at the Olympics in 2012. "He was an icon in the eyes of South Africans."

Pistorius at one point cried as he sat, his head bowed, on a wooden bench behind his lawyer.

"He's not only broke, but he's broken. There is nothing left of this man," Roux said. He said that Pistorius "hasn't even the money to pay for legal expenses. He has nothing left."

Pistorius' lawyers have argued for a three-year sentence of occasional house arrest and community service and no jail time, saying Pistorius has suffered emotionally and financially already, and would be under duress in prison because of his disability as a double amputee.

Nel called a house arrest sentence "shockingly disproportionate" to what Pistorius did in the pre-dawn hours of Valentine's Day last year when he shot four times with his 9 mm pistol through a toilet cubicle door in his home, hitting Steenkamp in the head, arm and hip.

Nel said Pistorius should never be allowed to own a firearm again after he was also convicted on another charge of unlawfully firing a gun in a public place in a restaurant incident in early 2013, weeks before Steenkamp's killing.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.