Pretoria - The pain of the Steenkamp family is far more important than the remorse of Oscar Pistorius when it comes to deciding his fate.
It was also in society's interest that the athlete serve at least 10 years in prison.
This was the sentiment of prosecutor Gerrie Nel, who spent more than an hour trying to convince Judge Thokozile Masipa to provide a harsh prison sentence for Paralympian athlete Oscar Pistorius.
Pistorius was found guilty of culpable homicide for shooting his then-girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, last year.
Throughout the sentencing proceedings, the defence has been calling for a sentence of correctional supervision, also known as house arrest, rather than prison time.
Nel began by saying that society has to be taken into account when sentencing, as the public has to trust in the court system.
He said based on Pistorius' actions, namely firing four shots into a confined space inside which he knew was a human being, society needs to know that such behaviour is wrong.
Nel said the deceased died inside Pistorius' toilet cubicle by bullets fired from a handgun with abnormally powerful ammunition, which was not a normal situation.
The court must take into account what the consequences are following Steenkamp's death, said Nel. He said we were lucky to have heard testimony from Steenkamp's cousin, Kim Martin, who spoke from both the family's perspective and society's view. He said that her emotional testimony deeply touched those who listened to it. Nel suggested that her soft-spoken words imploring the court for a jail sentence trounced the other sounds “heard” in the trial: the screams of a woman, the breaking down of the door.
He brought up the money Pistorius had been paying the Steenkamp family, saying it was not penance, but rather an offer to avoid the civil proceedings Pistorius had been threatened with.
Nel said this “offer” was opportunistic, and the defence revealing this was perfectly timed as a bid to influence the sentencing.
He said it almost looked like Pistorius had offered this money to “pay” for the life of the Steenkamp's daughter.
Nel said the parent's choice to remain “neutral” on sentencing was simply to avoid further trauma, after months of torment because of their loss. He spoke of the chaotic grief that followed for the family after Steenkamp's death.
He said society wants the court to focus on the impact of the damage to the Steenkamp family, not Pistorius's remorse.
Nel said that Pistorius claiming he could no longer “make millions” because of his career's failure after the death was also not a valid argument in mitigation of sentence.
He said that the proposed house arrest gave Pistorius significant freedom, because he could leave his luxurious home to train, go to church, work, etc.
Nel reiterated his statements from earlier this week that this was a “shockingly inappropriate” sentence considering the nature of the crime.
He said that legal precedent suggested that if the courts aren't guided by society's wishes, society could take justice into its own hands.
Nel argued that Steenkamp did nothing to contribute to her death, such as rushing out of the bathroom and frightening her gun-toting boyfriend. He described her as a total innocent “who died a horrific death”, with three bullets “ripping through her body”.
Nel said the family's closeness to their child also had to be considered exacerbating their greif.
He continued by saying that Pistorius' gross negligence was bordering on murder (dolus eventualis).
The prosecutor insisted that it was unlikely Pistorius did not realise the consequences of firing the night of the incident. He recalled how when he asked Pistorius about possibly firing a warning shot first, the athlete told the court he was worried it could have ricocheted and hit him.
Nel said killing a human being is the most grievous offence, and Pistorius' actions were so hasty and ill considered that the crime borders on murder, and could not be compared with a motor vehicle accident or assault.
He said that if Pistorius had been slightly more careful, Steenkamp would be alive today.
“The accused clearly wanted to use his firearm,” said Nel.
Nel said it was common for the defence to ask for mercy and not “break the accused”, when the Steenkamp family had been so broken themselves, and that Pistorius was not a victim.
He said claims the media victimising him also wasn't an argument, as he had previously wanted publicity during his illustrious career. He said no one forced Pistorius to read these reports.
Judge Masipa told Nel she would not be taking the defence’s submissions on the media into account in her judgment.
An important factor for Nel was that up to this day, the state does not know what Pistorius' version of the night of the shooting was.
Nel moved on to Pistorius' remorse, and said that it seemed that the athlete was sorry Steenkamp was dead, but not that he fired negligently.
Pistorius' praying and begging for Steenkamp to survive on the night of the shooting was normal behaviour, but Nel believed Pistorius had never told the court he was sorry for his actions.
Pistorius's anxiety was a major aspect during the athlete's trial, but Nel said he was able to visit a nightclub in recent months, and this was not something a remorseful person would do.
He also mentioned that despite Pistorius' handicap, he had done very well in life, and had constantly competed against able-bodied athletes. But Nel believed he was now using his disability to request special treatment when being sentenced.
“When it suits us, we're handicapped,” said Nel.
He mocked the defence's claims earlier this week that there were no railings in the prison showers, and said Pistorius' own shower at his home did not have one either.
He said the evidence presented by the defence this week on prison conditions should be rejected as it was “sketchy”, based on old statistics and biased against the prison system.
Nel also said complaining that the international broadcasting of court proceedings were traumatic also was not an argument, as the courts had to be transparent. Nel said people had the right to hear Pistorius' varying versions and untruths.
He said he found it very difficult to understand why the court will deal with the case differently, especially concerning correctional supervision. Nel said Pistorius' choices of what career path he would pursue if given such a sentence were totally unclear, meaning he may just “sit at home” and not contribute to society as he had promised.
He asked the court to reject any suggestion that Pistorius' prosthetics would be taken away if sent to prison, as this was obviously illegal.
Nel added that if the prisons system could not cater for Pistorius, he could return to court.
He finished by saying the minimum sentence that society would be happy with was 10 years in prison.
In his response, Roux said that Pistorius' personal shower was equipped with a “pedestal” substituting the necessity of a rail.
He also said the accused was not offering money to the Steenkamp family “left, right and centre”, but was trying to send a message of sympathy.
Roux also said that Pistorius' career path could be determined through the usual processes, and if he actively chose to not find a job he would be sentenced again.
Judge Masipa adjourned court for the day, saying she would deliver her ruling on Tuesday 21 October.
The Star