Pretoria - Oscar Pistorius is a good candidate for three years of house arrest, and 16 hours of community service a month should be enough to satisfy the need for retribution for the death of Reeva Steenkamp.
This was according to a social worker and probation officer from the Department of Correctional Services, Joel Maringa, who testified on Monday at Pistorius’s sentencing proceedings.
Pistorius was convicted of the culpable homicide of Reeva Steenkamp in September, after he shot and killed her through a locked bathroom door at his Pretoria housing estate on Valentine's Day last year.
Judge Thokozile Masipa must now decide on Pistorius's sentence for the crime.
Maringa was the second witness called by the defence in mitigation of sentence.
In his report, Maringa said Pistorius was referred to him earlier this month to determine if he was suitable for a sentence of correctional supervision, or in layman's terms: house arrest.
He noted that while Pistorius had been found guilty of culpable homicide, he was a first time offender who “used prosthetic limbs”.
Pistorius had told him he was a social drinker and denied taking illegal drugs, and that because of the trial he had lost his usual forms of income and was surviving on his savings.
According to Maringa, the accused could benefit from correctional supervision because of his good, “socially acceptable” behaviour, but his use of firearms should be revoked and he should also be sentenced to 16 hours of community service a month.
Maringa believed Pistorius was cooperative and would be able to live under house arrest if stringent restrictions were put in place.
He recommended that should the athlete be given correctional supervision, he not be able to leave his home and work address outside of the accompanying community service. He should also abstain from alcohol and attend numerous support programmes to handle his negative emotions and trauma.
In his cross-examination, prosecutor Gerrie Nel queried Maringa's knowledge of the judgment against Pistorius.
Maringa became confused on the stand and provided what Nel said was a flawed understanding of Judge Masipa's judgment.
Nel then implied Maringa's recommendation could not be taken seriously if he didn't fully understand the case or the seriousness of the culpable homicide conviction.
Nel said Maringa had based his report on a misreading of the judgment and had only taken into account Pistorius's personal circumstances.
Nel also discovered that Pistorius had told Maringa he wanted to continue his career as an athlete.
Maringa told the court he believed three years of correctional supervision was sufficient punishment.
“To even suggest three years... is shockingly inappropriate in this matter,” said Nel.
Maringa disagreed, saying support programmes and strict living conditions were aimed at rehabilitating Pistorius.
Nel insisted that this wasn't a typical culpable homicide conviction, not the usual car accident that generally results in such a conviction, and that Pistorius's negligence had to be taken into account.
When Judge Masipa asked Maringa what the community service would entail, he said it would mostly be cleaning for two eight-hour days twice a month.
The next defence witness called to the stand was Pistorius's manager Peet van Zyl.
Defence advocate Barry Roux made it clear that Van Zyl would focus on Pistorius's charity work and potential future career.
According to Van Zyl, the athlete was part - and occasionally patron - of several charity organisations, including being a part of some of Unicef's children's campaigns, where the athlete worked with disabled children in conflict countries.
He also responded to various Reach for a Dream requests to meet terminally ill children and help the organisation's fundraising drives.
Van Zyl said that Pistorius often wanted to keep his contributions to charity organisations, and even his own funding of some disabled children, a secret.
The manager described his client as “humble” and “accommodating”, and that Pistorius's own foundation could not be opened - as planned for July last year - because of Steenkamp's death.
The organisation would have helped landmine victims by giving them “the gift of mobility”.
Pistorius' career was next on Roux's list of questions, with Van Zyl explaining how from February last year, most of Pistorius' sponsorships fell away.
Van Zyl said Pistorius' sponsorships had increased in value after the London Olympics, with several originally in place until 2017 when Pistorius planned to retire from sport.
"At this time, all contracts have been officially terminated," said Van Zyl.
He said he'd not discussed further future career opportunities with Pistorius, after making a conscious decision to wait until the end of the trial before such plans could be made.
Nel asked for the matter to be stood down until Tuesday to familiarize himself with the documents provided from the defence to be analysed.
Roux confirmed only one more witness was set for the defence, another probation officer. However, it's still unclear who the state is planning to call for its own argument in aggravation of sentence.
The Star