Judge Masipa’s judgement is highly complicated
Criminal jurisprudence does not deal with the determination of truth and falsehood. Legal science is premised on the interpretation of law in relation to illegal acts. During a court trial, a judge should focus on the prevalence of “insurmountable evidentiary”. Insurmountable evidentiary is a form of evidence, which cannot be reasonably disputed by anyone. Recently, …
Criminal jurisprudence does not deal with the determination of truth and falsehood. Legal science is premised on the interpretation of law in relation to illegal acts.
During a court trial, a judge should focus on the prevalence of “insurmountable evidentiary”. Insurmountable evidentiary is a form of evidence, which cannot be reasonably disputed by anyone.
Recently, judge Thokozile Masipa presented her verdict on Oscar Pistorius’ case.
Pistorius was accused of murdering his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. Many people throughout the world followed Pistorius’ trial. Global public opinion was suggestive of a guilty verdict against Pistorius.
Masipa delivered the most controversial judgement in the history of jurisprudence. Against the tide of global anticipation, judge Masipa acquitted Pistorius of murder. Instead, the judge found Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide (unintentional killing).
Many people were bewildered and shocked by that verdict.
Judge Masipa’s decision to acquit Pistorius of murder is inconsistent with law of evidence.
The state had proved that Pistorius intentionally fired his firearm at an envisaged intruder.
The accused was fully aware that his actions could result in the killing of another human being. Pistorius was in the right state of mind to appreciate the eventual consequences of his actions.
That qualifies to be an act of premeditated murder.
Masipa was supposed to base her verdict on Pistorius’ element of intention. Intention has four dimensions: dolus indirectus (indirect intention), dolus directus (direct intention), dolus specialis (specific intention) and dolus eventualis (negligent intention).
The most critical question is: Was the accused aware that his actions might eventually result in the killing of a person?
In my opinion, the judge erred in her discretion to apply the principle of dolus eventualis to a charge of premeditated murder. On a charge of premeditated murder, the judge should apply the principle of dolus directus.
Elvis Masoga
Political Analyst
