Publications
Partners
Why is it that we can get so hyped about things that do not directly concern us, or that we do not understand?
Reeva’s mom unequivocally stated that she is fine with the sentence. So did their lawyer, Dup de Bruin. They hold that justice has been served. Yet it seems that the majority of those who are vocal about the sentence are dissatisfied.
Why?
Because those who rooted for him during the London Olympics, considering him to be a hero and an ambassador for SA at the time, are now disappointed? Is it because humans embrace the notion of someone who had been extremely successful at some point has fallen from grace?
Because some of us are subconsciously jealous at his achievements? And now some of us feel vindicated, because a superstar committed a crime. Even though a sports celebrity, Oscar is still human and therefore fallible. And disabled on top of it all.
What is it that drives some of us to seek vengeance at all costs and are even prepared to air our minds on behalf of the family of Reeva? The judge made a clear distinction between vengeance and retribution. Saying things like the 10 months he would probably spend in jail is a travesty of justice. Or that the judge has been bribed. Or that she does not understand the law. Or that the verdict of culpable homicide was wrong.
How do armchair critics, most likely ignorant of the principles of our legal system, justify their views? Based on what? Their own subjective views? I have no medical background and would therefore be extremely hesitant to venture thoughts on medical articles and the science of medicine. Because I am simply ignorant.
Yet it seems that all of a sudden the whole of SA has overnight become legal experts. All with opinions, which they are prepared to share publicly and especially on social media. Has no-one been taught to think before you speak?
I have followed the trial religiously and I do understand the legal principles involved. The judge cannot be faulted. The State simply did not prove its case of premeditated murder, beyond reasonable doubt.
A distinction has to be drawn between intent (dolus – of which there are at least three forms: dolus directus, indirectus and eventualis) and negligence (culpa). It is true that the distinction between gross negligence and intent in the form of dolus eventualis is often vague. But the accused has to have the benefit in case of doubt, unless the State’s case is solid. Which it was not.
Nothing happened, for instance, in regards to the cellphones which they sent to America in an attempt to uncover messages that could be detrimental to Oscar. In my view, there are those among us who would have rejoiced in Oscar being found guilty of murder, regardless of the evidence.
It would have confirmed that even though a celebrity, he can still make mistakes, and that he is human as opposed to some kind of sport deity. And some of us would have felt better. Because, as humans, we are all insecure. And it is much easier to project insecurity as evidenced by the conduct of someone else than to concretise that insecurity in our own lives. Ergo the sense of vindication or validation.
There is an old Roman law adagio: Ignorantia iuris nemimen excussat. Ignorance of the law excuses no one. It is valid in the sense of someone who commits an offence without knowing it to be either a statutory or common law offence. But I think it is also valid in terms of those so vocal about their views on the trial without any clue as to the basic principles of law.
I can only shake my head at those who are evidently unable to be objective. Those who have also religiously followed the trial and made conclusions about the law and justice in general without being aware of the tenets of our legal system. Subjectivism, I assert, is the root of many an evil. It confirms an inability to reason, and to think outside the box of our own little worlds. Sad, but true...
