Crookbond Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 Pistorius cleared of murder charges http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-south-african-judge-thokozile-masipa-delivers-verdict/article6401267.ece?homepage=true “Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased as he thought she was in the bedroom,” Judge Masipa told a packed court, as tears streamed down Pistorius' face.
maniac Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 Pistorius cleared of murder charges http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-south-african-judge-thokozile-masipa-delivers-verdict/article6401267.ece?homepage=true Yep Just saw that on TV but might still go to jail
Brainfade Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 It is good that they have a system where someone who is hit with a big charge (pre-meditated murder) can be convicted of a lower charge if enough evidence is not found for the big one. Unlike the US system where someone who is charged with murder 1 or murder 2 cannot be convicted of manslaughter even if enough evidence existed for it. Remember the GZimmerman-Trayvon Martin case? The idiot prosecutors charged GZ with murder 1 (or 2?), but there was not enough evidence to convict on that charge. If they had used their brains and charged him with manslaughter, dude would be doing time. But idiots had to grandstand instead of going with the best chance to get a conviction.
Crookbond Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 It is good that they have a system where someone who is hit with a big charge (pre-meditated murder) can be convicted of a lower charge if enough evidence is not found for the big one. Unlike the US system where someone who is charged with murder 1 or murder 2 cannot be convicted of manslaughter even if enough evidence existed for it. Remember the GZimmerman-Trayvon Martin case? The idiot prosecutors charged GZ with murder 1 (or 2?), but there was not enough evidence to convict on that charge. If they had used their brains and charged him with manslaughter, dude would be doing time. But idiots had to grandstand instead of going with the best chance to get a conviction.
Brainfade Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 Different levels of homicide. In the US, Murder 1 is the worst. The Premeditated, schemed variety. Murder 2 is not schemed, but not done in heat of passion either. Voluntary manslaughter is when you went into a situation with no intent to kill, but ended up killing someone in a heat of passion. Involuntary manslaughter is when you physically hurt someone with no intent to kill, but they died anyway. They charged Zimmerman with Murder 2. But the evidence was not tight to convict on Murder 2. But, the way the system works, they can't convict on a lower charge even if the evidence was good enough for a lower charge. You convict on the charge that was brought, or you acquit. He got away because the prosecution f'd up. Due to pressure from the Feds, they charged him with Murder 2. But, they did not have evidence to show it was Murder 2. The punk walked scot-free. If they had charged him voluntary manslaughter, he'd be in prison now. In Pistorius' case, they charged him with premeditated murder, found that there was not enough to prove it was premeditated, so they convicted on a lower charge. Can't do that in the US.
Raghav_12 Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 Different levels of homicide. In the US, Murder 1 is the worst. The Premeditated, schemed variety. Murder 2 is not schemed, but not done in heat of passion either. Voluntary manslaughter is when you went into a situation with no intent to kill, but ended up killing someone in a heat of passion. Involuntary manslaughter is when you physically hurt someone with no intent to kill, but they died anyway. They charged Zimmerman with Murder 2. But the evidence was not tight to convict on Murder 2. But, the way the system works, they can't convict on a lower charge even if the evidence was good enough for a lower charge. You convict on the charge that was brought, or you acquit. He got away because the prosecution f'd up. Due to pressure from the Feds, they charged him with Murder 2. But, they did not have evidence to show it was Murder 2. The punk walked scot-free. If they had charged him voluntary manslaughter, he'd be in prison now. In Pistorius' case, they charged him with premeditated murder, found that there was not enough to prove it was premeditated, so they convicted on a lower charge. Can't do that in the US. Indian system is very much like American system in that aspect. After case is registered and police investigation is complete, police submits a chargesheet putting charges on the accused. In chargesheet police puts the section under which accused should be tried. Based on material supplied by Police, Magistrate/Judge officially frames the charges and section (CrpC 226/CrPC 238) under for which trial will be conducted. Now whole trial will be to prove or disprove these charges. If during trial facts emerges which suggest commitment of crime under different sections than the one labeled on accused, magistrate would ignore those. Even though magistrate and judges are empowered to reframe the charges during trial if they deem necessary but happens extremely rarely. The reason behind such approach is process of criminal jurisprudence is defense-centric. Whole exercise of trial is to prove commitment of crime by accused beyond reasonable doubt. Trial should give ample opportunity to accused to prepare his/her defense. Trying and convicting an accused of a charge which that person did not defend against doesn't seem right and with a reason also. Details of all charges, evidences, testimonies are bared open infront of accused at the start of trail itself and then accused is supposed to defend himself. Accused can't defend himself against something which has not been informed to him. In Salman Khan's rash driving case case, initial charge framed was of death due to negligence (IPC 304 A) but later on based on emerging facts Judge elevated those charges to culpable homicide (IPC 304). Salman Khan demanded re-trial as he had not defended himself against most sever charges of culpable homicide. If I remember correctly, court agreed with that contention and he was granted re-trial.
Recommended Posts