Oscar Pistorius denied parole a decade after killing girlfriend!

Introduction

Oscar Pistorius, also known as the Blade Runner, is a former South African sprint runner and Paralympic gold medalist. In 2013, Pistorius was convicted of culpable homicide for the shooting death of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. He was sentenced to five years in prison and was released on parole after serving less than a year. However, in March 2021, Pistorius was denied parole, a decade after killing his girlfriend. In this essay, we will explore the reasons why Pistorius was denied parole and the implications of his case.

Background

On Valentine's Day in 2013, Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, in his home in Pretoria, South Africa. Pistorius claimed that he mistook Steenkamp for an intruder and fired four shots through a closed bathroom door. However, the prosecution argued that Pistorius shot Steenkamp intentionally during an argument.

Pistorius was charged with murder, but he was convicted of the lesser charge of culpable homicide, which is similar to manslaughter in other jurisdictions. He was sentenced to five years in prison, but he was released on parole after serving just ten months in prison. In 2016, the Supreme Court of Appeal overturned Pistorius's conviction and found him guilty of murder. He was sentenced to six years in prison for murder.

In 2017, Pistorius's sentence was increased to 13 years and five months after the prosecution appealed the original sentence. Pistorius has been serving his sentence at the Atteridgeville Correctional Centre in Pretoria.

Denial of Parole

In March 2021, the South African parole board denied Pistorius's request for parole, citing concerns about his lack of remorse and the severity of his crime. Pistorius had applied for parole after serving half of his sentence, as is the norm in South Africa.

The parole board stated that Pistorius had not shown genuine remorse for his actions and had not adequately addressed the impact of his crime on the victim's family. They also noted that Pistorius had not completed the required rehabilitation programs during his time in prison.

Implications

The denial of parole for Pistorius has sparked debate and controversy in South Africa and around the world. Some argue that Pistorius should be given another chance at parole, as he has served a significant portion of his sentence and has shown some signs of remorse. Others argue that Pistorius's lack of remorse and the severity of his crime make him unsuitable for early release.

The case has also raised questions about the South African justice system and its handling of high-profile cases. Some have criticized the original sentence of five years for culpable homicide, which they see as too lenient for the crime committed. Others have criticized the parole system, which allows for early release after serving just a fraction of a sentence.

Conclusion

The case of Oscar Pistorius has been a controversial and divisive one since the shooting of Reeva Steenkamp in 2013. The denial of parole for Pistorius a decade after the crime has brought the case back into the public eye and sparked new debates about the justice system and the treatment of high-profile offenders.

Ultimately, the decision to grant or deny parole for Pistorius is a complex one, with no clear-cut answer. However, it is important that the parole board considers all relevant factors, including Pistorius's level of remorse and rehabilitation, before making a decision. Regardless of the outcome, the case serves as a reminder of the devastating impact that domestic violence and gun violence can have on individuals and communities. Did he deserved this!?