Guilty or Innocent, Is that the right question???
As the Oscar trial trickles to a close I see it befitting to address the most widely asked question in the last few weeks. Is he guilty or is he innocent? Frankly I think most people are asking the wrong question. This case is based on the lost life of Reeva steenkamp in Oscars home, its obvious then for the prosecution that the case is open and shut and maybe that has been the problem with what the state (prosecution) has been trying to prove.
When you look at the prosecution’s evidence and testimony’s, it has mainly been directed to prove that Oscar “murdered” Reeva in cold blood which in my opinion is a lazy outlook on the whole case. Look, So far as we have seen Oscar is being branded as a gun slinging raving lunatic with anger issues who woke up in the middle of the night to shoot his suspected “cheating” girlfriend. As a person of average intelligence and with Oscars resources I would think if he indeed wanted to take her life out of blind jealousy, he would have been able to come up with a more refined plan that could hold water in a court of law or just have her assassinated if it comes down to it. I mean how stupid could you be to commit a crime of such magnitude in your own home and open yourself to such scrutiny and still be confident enough to stand up in court and plead not guilty to the charges. I mean he has the kind of money that would allow him to get away with certain crimes but arrogantly doing something like that would not be logical even for a mentally disabled person, which he isn’t.
In my opinion, the theory that makes more sense is that Oscar is an athlete with a disability and quite frankly my experience with disabled people and their psychology, goes to prove that yes he has anger issue’s and has been known to be temperamental and violent but so do most people and more so people with physical disabilities. The science of it is that if you are blind your four other sense’s become heightened and if you are deaf the other four are enhanced and so on and so forth but also included in that increase of sorts is anger, fear, self-consciousness and many other side effects of disability in a humans. Coupled with the fact that he is an athlete who is most likely on under the counter performance enhancing substances and on a strict adrenaline boosting diet which would contribute to his general emotional stability, its makes more scientific sense to attribute his out bursts to that rather than being an out of control psychopath.
Like many other professional sports men the world over who have an inclination to domestic violence, Oscar is not an exemption and in recent years studies have done to try and understand If there something about the culture of professional sports that fosters violent behaviour? And if so, what can leagues do about it?
So that makes him as a disabled man incredibly volatile and paranoid and pretty much an accident waiting to happen and that is all the prosecution has been able to prove so far. There are many similar case’s the world over and it was inevitable that such cases should start to arise and become more of a problem in a fast developing country and continent as we break through into professional sports at its highest level.
However that doesn’t exempt them from the law, and in this case Oscar is quite simply guilty of man slaughter defined as “the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or in circumstances not amounting to murder”. He panicked, and then overreacted in a situation and took someone’s life and he should be justly sentenced for that particular crime, however did he kill a woman he loved in his home just because he was jealous? I truly don’t think so.
Oscar might be reckless and is small ball of anger waiting to explode at any moment but he is not a murderer, so yes he is innocent of murder. If you look at the crimes he is charged with, we clearly see that this case is all about trying to prove whether the man is guilty of “murder with premeditation” and to be honest as a person who understands the basic’s of law, the prosecution has failed to prove that.
The unfortunate thing is that public opinions will inadvertently affect the judges final verdict regardless of what the law says. And most people’s knowledge of what the law dictates is what they see on television on a Tuesday night episode of their favourite crime series, which does not accurately describe the circumstances that determine whether an incident is a crime or not and what the statutory sentencing of those crimes should be.
We can only sit back and await the outcry that will come from the final verdict and honestly if we are not asking the right questions, the answers that we get will most definitely be very unwelcome to the public.