disabled young people in particular as he grew and excelled in his career. this the seriousness of the offenses. the accused was found guilty of two offenses, both very serious. in respect of the charge in count one, the accused was

convicted of culpable homicide. counsel for the state correctly referred to negligence in this matter as gross negligence that bordered on -- on his own version, the accused knew that there was someone behind the door. he had heard the window slide open. he had heard the toilet door slam shut. he had heard a noise coming from the inside of the toilet. it would have been different if he had just heard a noise and assumed that something, maybe a stray animal, was in the toilet. in this instance, the evidence shows that he thought an intruder was behind the door. using a lethal weapon, a loaded firearm, the accused fired not

one, but four shots into the toilet door. it is so that in his evidence he said he would have fired higher if his intention was to kill. and this court accepted that. however, that does not change the fact that he knew the facts above, and that the toilet was a small cubicle and that there was no room for escape for the person behind the door. what is also significant is that the accused had been trained in the use of, and in the handling of firearms. in my view, all that is very aggravating. mitigating factors are the following. the accused is a first offender and seems remorseful. although counsel for the state suggested that the accused's apology to the parents of the

deceased may not have been genuine as it was made in open court, this court accepts the evidence that the accused had earlier attempted to apologize privately to the deceased's parents, but they were not ready, so the attempt failed. this court accepts as a mitigating factor the conduct of the accused after the incident, which indicated that the accused wanted the deceased to live. i also do not agree with the, with state counsel that because mental and physical vulnerability of the accused was taken into consideration in reaching a decision on judgment, it cannot be taken into consideration for purposes of sentence. vulnerability of a person forms

part of his or her personal circumstances. in order to be considered together with other relevant factors during the sentencing procedure. in mitigation, counsel for the defense referred to the accused, compromised emotional and depressed state. he said some media reports had made the accused a victim to the extent that the actual punishment for the crime would do little to alleviate the ill effects caused by such reports. much as i agree with counsel for the state that media reports can affect a person only if he or she follows such reports. it is a fact that negative media reports about someone may effect his or her reputation, his or

her career or prospects thereof. this would happen whether or not that person was personally exposed to such reports. i have taken note of only that fact and not the details and the merits of the allegations in the media reports. the interest of society. the interest of society demand that those who commit crimes be punished and in deserving cases that they be punished severely. as counsel for the defense correctly submitted, we ought to differentiate between what is in the public interest and what society wants.

society cannot always get what they want. as courts do not exist to win popularity contests but exist solely to dispense justice. what may appear to be justice to the uninformed, general public, however, may not necessarily be justice. the general public may not even know the difference between punishment and vengeance. a distinction which is very important when a court is exercising its sentencing function. fortunately, regardless of the level of understanding among the general public, south africa has a constitution which applies to everyone and which protects everyone, including those who

transgress the laws. as a country, we have a long, we have long moved from dark ages. that is the era of and i quote, an eye for an eye closed quote. retribution, which, however, from the legal point of view, is not the same as vengeance, has earlier yielded ground to other purposes of punishment. in is krig, 1961, volume 1. s.a. 231. a in brackets, capital a to capital c.

i quote. while the effect of punishment has remained as important as ever, it is, i think, correct to say that the retributive action -- that is a good thing. but the element of retribution, historically important is by no means absent from the modern approach. it is not wrong that the natural indignation of interested persons and of the community at large should receive some recognition in the sentences that courts impose. and it is not irrelevant to bear in mind at that if sentences for

serious crimes are too lenient, the administration of justice may fall into disrepute and injured persons may be inclined to take the law into their own hands. naturally, righteous anger should not be cloud judgment, closed quote. it is impossible to deal with the interest of society without reference to the deceased and her family. at the time the deceased met her death, she was young, vivacious and full of life. talking about the deceased, mrs. martin painted a picture of a promising young woman who cared deeply for family, who was full

of hope for the future and who lived life to the full. while giving evidence, it was obvious that mrs. martin still felt the pain of the loss of someone dear to her. doubtless, this pain reflects the pain of the family of the deceased. she spoke of the deceased's parents who were not coping very well without their daughter, especially financially. the loss of life cannot be reversed. nothing i say or do today can reverse what happened on 14 february 2014 to the deceased and to her family. hopefully this judgment on

sentence shall provide some sort of closure for the family and for all concerned so that they can move on with their lives. conclusion. there's a delicate balance between the crime the criminal and the interest of society. the extent of the negligence in culpable homicide cases plays an important role in coming to an appropriate sentence, which should neither be too severe, nor too light. nxumalo, 1982, volume 3 sa, a-56, capital a in brackets, at 6, i'll rephrase that. at 861, capital g to capital h,

j.a. state of the following. it seems to me that in determining an appropriate sentence in such cases, the basic criterion to which the court must have regard is the degree of culpability or blameworthiness exhibited by the accused in coming, in committing the negligent act. relevant to such culpability or blameworthiness would be the extent of the accused's deviation from the norms of reasonable conduct in the circumstances and the foreseeability of the consequences of the accused's negligence. at the same time, the actual consequences of the accused's

negligence cannot be disregarded, closed quote. counsel for the defense referred this court to a number of cases where accuseds were found guilty of culpable homicide. in my view, none of these cases are on point. there are, however, two cases that i need to deal with. one is the state versus warren foster in brackets, case number 125 stroke 2009, in the south houghton close quote brackets, in that case, the accused fired a shot at the roof on the premises believing that there was an intruder who endangered the life of a 12 year old

grandson of his helper. however, the shot went through the window frame and shot him, who must have been standing just behind the window. the shot struck him on the forehead, and he died almost instantly. the accused's version in that case was that he was hoping to scare the intruder out, and that his decision was made in a haste. and in fear against the background of his own constant anxiety about intruders. when the accused saw the boy lying on the floor, he broke down the wooden door which had been bolted from the inside and

tried to resuscitate the child. the paramedics arrived and found the accused still trying in vain to resuscitate the boy. the accused was then arrested the same night and charged with murder. the court in that case found that the accused did not fire with gross negligence into areas where he knew that there might be people. he fired at an angle which was lower than that which he intended. in respect of remorse from the accused, the court noted the following, i quote, mr. foster was beside himself with grief. pain and remorse to the extent that the police brought in a

trauma counselor to the cells to try to help him. it is now almost two years later, and mr. foster is clearly still in a case of posttraumatic shock. i have never before seen an accused person as devastated and remorseful as he is. he has had therapy, initially, apparently, from someone connected to his church, but since may 2010, from a clinical psychologist to whom he was referred by his legal representative, closed quote. a few months after this incident, that's the incident in the foster matter, the woman resigned from her work because she felt she could no longer

live and work in the place where her grandson had died so horribly. she felt he had died like an animal. i again quote from the courts. she rejected offers of help and a possible trust fund to set up -- i'll have to rephrase that. she rejected offers of help and a possible trust fund set up to help her or to educate members of the family, and she asked that nothing of the sort be done. she's in great emotional pain at present, and said that she thought that her pain would never end, closed quote. in imposing sentence, the court found that, i quote, a court

should strife for balance between the interest of society the interest of the accused and the seriousness of the offense. a sentence which overemphasizes one element, dot, dot, dot, cannot be balanced, and it is likely to be a wrong sentence. finally, in imposing a sentence, a court should be merciful. this means that it should sentence the accused with a full appreciation for human frailties and for the accused's own particular circumstances at the time of the offense. where the offense is one of negligence, i believe this particularly the case for

ordinary, every day people who are not criminals are capable for the kind of negligence that has tragic and life-long consequences. a court should strive to keep such a person out of prison where this is possible, as i've said, the loss of an innocent life is almost always serious and society tends to be even more shocked when the victim is a child as here. members of the child's family are particularly badly affected. i have considered the needs of society, and i believe that these would be best served by it knowing and seeing that mr. foster is donating some of his time for the service of other less-privileged people, closed quote. the court further said the

following. i quote, it is being done for two purposes. to try to show society and the family that mr. foster is being punished, all be it relatively lightly for what he has done, and secondly, to assist mr. foster to interact with needful people and to help him to find some form of emotional equilibrium while doing so. i have decided that the appropriate sentence in this case is one of three years imprisonment, suspended completely for five years, on condition that firstly, he's not again convicted of culpable homicide caused by an assault and committed during the period of imprisonment and secondly that he performs 300 hours of

community service over one year, which commences running on the date of the sentence, dot, dot, dot. he is to be placed under the supervision of mr. phillip hall. mr. hall will decide upon the work which mr. foster is to do in assisting the rotary club in any of the various charitable undertakings which it engages in, closed quote. counsel for the accused submitted that the facts in the foster case bore similarities to those in the present case. he considered that in this instance the accused, by

discharging four shots into the door, created a more dangerous situation. he argued that on the other hand, mr. foster did not suffer from the disabilities and vulnerability of the accused in the present case. and the slow benefit of the disability and vulnerability. it is clear that the facts in foster are dissimilar to the facts in the present case. it is so that like foster the accused was reacting to a perceived threat and that soon after the incident, he, like the man in the foster matter tried to resuscitate the deceased and

that he was very emotional and suffers for trauma, even 18 months after the incident. how much, there are a number of important distinguishing features. one, in the foster matter, the accused did not know that there was a person behind the door. in the present case, the accused did. he stated that after he heard the bathroom window slide open and the slamming of the door, the noise or movement in the toilet confirmed to him that there was someone in the toilet. two, in the foster case, only one shot was fired. and it had been aimed above the roof, not into the door. in contrast, the accused in the

present case deliberately fired four shots into the door. three, in the foster matter, the aim was to frighten away the intruder. in the words of the accused, in the present case, the aim was to shoot the intruder. four, in the foster matter, if there had been an intruder on the premises, he might have had an opportunity to flee or escape the harm or death. in the present case, the opposite is true. the toilet was a small cubicle. an intruder would not have, would, would have had no room to maneuver or to escape. and what is more, the accused knew this fact. five, the accused was trained in the use of firearms and intended

to be a collector. in my view, a high degree of responsibility would be required from such a person. although it is so that in the foster case the accused did not suffer from the disabilities and vulnerabilities of the accused, i find that that fact, regardless, the degree of negligence in this matter is such that the sentence, as suggested by mrs. fahir and mr. maringa would not be appropriate considering the circumstances in the matter. in the matter of the state

versus syrbonga dunga, spelled mduge, 777 stroke 12, original court, closed brackets, the accused and the deceased were sleeping at their home when at about 12:30 a.m. the accused was awoken by a noise as if a window was opening. he thought a burglar was trying to get into the house. fearful for his life, he grabbed his firearm from his bedside pedestal drawer and made his way to the entrance of the room. he could hear the noise coming from the bathroom. slowly, he made his way to the bathroom door to investigate.

as he reached the bathroom door, it suddenly opened. startled and afraid for his life, he discharged his firearm, thinking that the person who opened the door was a burglar. that person, however, was not an intruder but his wife. he rushed her to hospital, but it was too late. the accused in this case was arrested for murder but entered a plea and sentence agreement with the npa, in terms of section 105 capital a of the criminal procedure act. in terms of the agreement, the national prosecuting authority accepted a plea of guilty to culpable homicide. the national prosecuting

authority agreed to the following sentence in the plea and sentence agreement. i quote, it is agreed that a just sentence in all the circumstances shall be that the accused is sentenced to eight years imprisonment, which is wholly suspended for a period of five years on the following conditions. one, the accused is not again convicted of murder or assault or any other offense of which assault is an element during the period of suspension, closed quote. again, counsel for the defense argued that the facts in that case held a striking similarity to those in the present case.

i disagree. it is so that in both cases the accuseds were reacting to a noise they interpreted as someone entering their home. the huge distinguishing feature is that in that case someone, that is the deceased, did open the door. whereas, in the present case, no such thing happened. this fact, as well as the additional factors already referred to above would make the present case so serious that a suspended sentence would not be appropriate in my view. for a very good reason, an appropriate sentence should neither be too light nor too

severe. the former might cause the public to lose confidence in the justice system, and people might be tempted to take the law into their own hands. on the other hand, the latter might break the accused, and the result might be just the opposite of what the punishment set out to do. which, ultimately, is to rehabilitate the accused, and to give him an opportunity, where possible, to become a useful member of society once more. i have considered all the evidence placed before me. and all the submissions and arguments by counsel. i have weighed all the relevant factors. the purposes of punishment and

all forms of punishment, including restorative justice principles. i have also taken into account the seriousness of the offense, which led to the death of the deceased. the personal circumstances of the accused and the interests of society. i have taken the particular circumstances of the accused at the time of the offense into account. having regard to the circumstances in the matter, i am of the view that a non-custodial sentence would send a wrong message to the community. on the other hand, a long sentence would also not be appropriate either, as it would

lack the element of mercy. a sentence cannot be said to be appropriate without the feelings of mercy for the accused and hope for his reformation. in bracket 1994, 1 sacr, 584, capital a in brackets at 588 j to 589 b closed brackets, i am mindful, how mucever, of the fa that true mercy has nothing to do with weakness but is an element of justice. in bracket cs, versus v, 1972, volume 3, s.a., 611, capital a

in brackets at 614. in respect of the conviction in count three, i have taken into account that no one was hurt, though the offense is a serious one, especially the setting of a restaurant, i do not believe that the degree of negligence in respect of this count, that is count three justifies a sentence of direct imprisonment. mr. pistorias, please rise. the following is what i consider to be a sentence that is fair

and just, both to society and to the accused. count one, culpable homicide, the sentence imposed is the maximum imprisonment of five years imposed in terms of section 2761 i of the criminal procedure x, number 51 of 1977. two, on count two, the contravention of section 120, subsection 3 b of the firearms control act, number 60 of 2000, the sentence imposes three years imprisonment, wholly suspended for five years on condition that within the period of suspension the accused is not found guilty

of the crime where there is negligence involving the use of a firearm. paragraph three. the sentence in count one and the sentence on count two shall run concurrently. >> as the court pleases. >> you may be seated, mr. pistorias. is there anything i need to know before the court adjourns? >> no, milady. i indicated to the court that i would address the court on the firearm. i had to look at section 103 of the act. section 103 automatically. >> which act are we talking about? >> that the arms and ammunition

act, section 103 of that act. >> of which one? >> the arms and ammunition act. >> that's '69? 1969? >> 60 of 2000. >> have i caught the citation incorrectly? >> the accused was convicted of contravening this act. act 20 of, 60 of 2000. >> we, we it's 60 of 2000. but what is the name of the act? >> it's the firearms control act. >> i thought so. thank you. >> section 103 of that act, milady. dealt with section 103. if, unless the court determines otherwise, the person becomes unfit to possess a firearm if

convicted of f, any other crime in which a firearm was used, whether the firearm was used or handled by that person or by any participant in the offense. that, in itself, declares unfit. >> yes. in other words, it's automatic. >> it indicates that a court which just convicted a person of a crime in subsection 1 as the determination contemplated in that subsection has made a declaration in subsection two must notify in writing of that declaration. lady, i have now, in practice, as soon as the court will sign a judgment on this sap 69 form that we use, that is the, that is then to be complied with. milady, subsection 103-4

indicates that the court will order the immediacy, search and seizure of certificates and so fo forth. i don't think it's necessary in this case, i think we can sort it out with the defense that that be handed over immediately. i indicated i will study and inform the court of, i think that the court has done what the court should do, and we've now reached the end of the case. >> thank you very much. yes? >> i agree with that, milady. and in any event, there will be no submissions to the contrary, and we will cooperate with the state in making available all the certificates. he does not want to be fit to possess a firearm. we put that of record. >> thank you very much. anything else? nothing.

before i adjourn, i just wish to thank counsel again once more. i know, i wish to thank you and your team. i wish to thank all the court officials who assisted me in this matter and all the staff who were assisting me in this matter. and i wish to thank the gallery. it was not an easy matter. but in general, i was very pleased with the conduct of everyone involved. court will adjourn. all right. so we are looking at the court being adjourned there in

pretoria, south africa after we have heard the judge tell us what oscar pistorias is being sentenced to. and that is five years in prison. let's break down what we have been listening to over the past hour. the judge went through a whole lot of information. she pretty much laid out a case saying this is why i came to this conclusion. were you surprised at all by the five years? >> i was not surprised by the five years, because we were talking off camera where we thought it was somewhere around three years or so because so much of the case law she cited was saying a three year sentence, and in many cases those would be suspended sentences. so i was not necessarily surprised because the prosecution wanted ten years. >> they wanted ten years minimum. >> and the defense wanted no term in prison. so she really cut it down the middle where she went through an entire colloquy and why she was

doing this sentence, what factors she had to take into consideration and that's why she did it. >> and that's because possibly with an appeal they would look at why she ruled this way. do you think that's why she went through the long list of how she got to the conclusion? >> yes. because in south africa, they look at the judge's rationale for the sentencing and how she reached the verdict. she read a statement, and it took go tabout two days for her say what the verdict was because she had to lay out the rationale, because that is the first thing people look at for appeals in south africa. >> we are looking at live pictures of the family members. we were just on a shot of reeva steenkamp's father and mother. i didn't even see oscar pistorias break down. you can see the father in white there with the white beard. his mother or rieeva steenkamp'

mother is nearby. she's a blond lady. we have seen pistorias break down, uncontrol whenlably at ti but today he seemed very stoic as he sat there for an hour listening to this. >> during the trial he was the most dramatic defendant i've ever seen. he puked. almost passed out. he received psychological treatment during the middle of trim and those are things that the judge considered. she stated that she considered how his psychological treatment was done, how he was getting treatment for his mental illness, not his mental illness, but his depression in this case. so she took that in as mitigating factors for her sentence, because the judge has the right to look at two different sets of factors, the aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances. the mitigating circumstances are

the issues where a sentence should be a little bit lighter based upon a person's remorse. based upon what they did after the fact, for example, in this case, she said that oscar did not want her to die and he was very remorseful. >> mm-hm. >> she took that into consideration as a mitigating factor. >> it sounds like she also took into consideration that this could possibly break him. if it was too tough of a sentence, it could break him. >> in american courts, that would never be an issue. >> seems like a mercy was involved in this decision, right? >> yes. about a third of her statement was about him. and that's what a lot -- i've been reading social media, and so many people are upset based upon that. why is she so concerned about him? but that is how south africa does it. they look at the burden of the defendant and the rehabilitation of the accused. they use the word accused in south africa, the rehabilitation

of the accused to render a fair verdict. and it was very interesting that she talked about mercy upon him, his mental state, his lack of stability. if prison would break him. >> right. >> which in america, that is not ever a consideration. >> do you think there's a lot of pressure on judge masipa, because she is truly only the second black female judge in south africa, so not only are a lot of people looking at this case with the details and the fame involved and the celebrity and beautiful model involved but also this judge as to where her role is in this? >> i think that is a factor in reference to her being the first black judge, however, this is a trial on a worldwide scale that everyone is looking at. everyone is looking at every single word that she say, everything she does and pays close attention to it. that's why she had to be

extremely careful with her verdict to make sure she gave the rationale as for number one, what her verdict would be and what her sentence would be for oscar pistorias. that's why it took her so long to go through all her rationalization of the verdict and sentence. so it's very interesting. >> and being only the second female black judge in south africa, a lot of people may have, we would have seen public outcry had she just given him a slap on the wrist and no prison time. >> absolutely. because in this case, she found him guilty of the lowest level of homicide. culpable homicide. so a lot of people were extremely nervous about what the sentence may be, because probation will, probation was an option for her. and luckily she did not do that. so she cut it kind of in the middle with five years, where she did give prison time, but it wasn't a lot, considered that a young lady died at the hands of this man. it wasn't a lot, but i think that she cut it down the middle

to apiepease everyone. >> we're watching people file out of the courtroom. and maybe we'll get some sound if anyone wants to speak to the media. but as we watch all this play out and listening to the judge talk about how she came to her verdict, she also discussed a lot about the prison system. because there was some argument, especially by the defense, saying look, these prisons may not be able to handle somebody with a disability like the oscar pistorias. but the judge said hold up a second, there are other people in prisons with disabilities. and this is a man who ran in the olympics with full-bodied people and this is going to prevent him from going to prison? >> yes, when she started giving the rationale, it seemed like she was starting to go towards probation or a non-custodial

sentence. then she talked about modissa who is the acting commissioner and he said that the prisons are equipped to handle a man without legs. the prisons are equipped to take care of someone with special needs, because they will try to accommodate him the best to their ability. and they have the ability to do that. because the defense lawyers, just like you pointed out, they put up those mitigating factors and mitigating witnesses to say this is why you should not sentence him to prison, ush. but he has a disability. he has different, he's vulnerable with all these scary people in prison, and he should not be sentenced to prison. that's what the defense lawyer's job is, to give the judge as much mitigation as they can to reduce their sentence. and she actually just disregarded one of their witnesses as totally not credible, because he was going

off of bad data, which was very interesting that she did that. >> exactly. i was surprised. she really went in on that witness and said i kind of discredit everything that that person said. the facts were outdated. it was completely wrong. but i think going back to the disabilities issue, she brought it to an elementary level, saying there are women in prison who are pregnant, yet they still have to serve their terms. and that same point is they face a lot of health issues, they face a lot of things that others may not, but they still have to do their term. >> yes. just because you have a disability does not excuse you from serving your sentence. because the judge went through several things, over 20 items where she looked at mitigation versus aggravating circumstances, and the disability was definitely one of them. because she mentioned just because you don't have legs does not mean you can't serve prison time. that's why she looked at modissa

and stated that his testimony was extremely credible, because he said they can accommodate him. they will make sure that if he needs special shower arrangements or protection they can do that, but she must give a verdict in the interest of justice for the people of south africa. >> we want to go to the phone to someone who was in the courtroom as it played out. tell us what you saw from the family members. were you able to get more of that in the courtroom or perhaps speak with some of them? >> caller: i was sitting a few meters behind the steencamp and miss tor ka pistorias families. finally, at the end, she asked mr. pistorias to stand and she sentenced him to a three-year

suspended sentence with those firearms charges and five years in jail for the culpable homicide charge for the killing of his girlfriend reeva steenkamp. and he will likely serve less than that once he's considered for parole. and he was taken down to the docks, and he glanced at his uncle, and as he left the dock as police officers escorted him and then the family left the courtroom. they seemed unmoved. perhaps they were expecting a sentence like this. perhaps they were expecting more. over the last seven months we've seen so much emotion inside this courtroom. it's the seteencamp family just left and told reporters that he's glad this is over. the appeal process may now be ahead for the pistorias and steencamp families. >> do you know how soon that

appeals process may start? >> caller: that's not clear as yet, but the prosecution have indicated that they would want to appeal this if there was a custodial sentence of anything less than ten years. so we do now expect some sort of appeal process to take place, which could take several more years, however, the timetable of that is not clear as yet. >> did you hear any kind of a gasp or any kind of reaction in the courtroom? it was kind of hashed for us to see and hear it as we were listening to the judge hand down the sentence, but what did you hair, and what was feeling inside the courtroom at that time? >> caller: there was extraordinary tension inside this room. remember this trial has lasted now for seven months. seven months of building anticipation. and yet, when you got to that moment, when the sentence was delivered, when oscar mipistori

was asked to stand to hear the verdict of the judge that aere little reaction. one person behind my was sobbing in her chair, but she on her own. there was little reaction. actually, i'm standing outside the courtroom now. members of the women's league, the ruling party here in south africa are chanting, and they're si singing. they're hugging. they've taken on reeva steenkamp as a case to support. they've been in court every single day. they say it's ill administrative of the plight of women and the high level of violence in the country. they are cheering. they are chanting. next to me. inside there's surprisingly

little reaction. there's building anticipation throughout the day, throughout the last seven months, but today, when that announcement was made, there seemed to be general acceptance on both sides of this, perhaps acceptance by the pistorias family that this is what they expected, and perhaps acceptance by the steencamps, that oscar pistorias will go to jail, and that will be the punishment for the killing of his girlfriend, reeva steenkamp. >> were you surprised that there was very little reaction from oscar pistorias himself? because as we've watched this play out over many months, he's been very emotional. but today he didn't seem as emotional as he did in the past. >> caller: that's right, betsy, it was surprising to see that, given that the level of emotion shown has been one of the hallmarks of this, having said that, though, perhaps there was a sense of expectation that meant that, you know, there was

this flat reaction. but there's a long way to go. perhaps it could take months or years. betsy? >> as a whole, i think we watch this. look at the trial in depth. and this one particular issue and what they're dealing with in the case, but as you mention, we're hearing a lot of sounds or we have been, just moments ago, from some of the women's league in south africa, because if you look at this as a bigger picture, i think you would see that a lot of women in africa and around the world were watching this very closely to see how the judge would rule when it comes to violence against women in this particular case. is that what you're seeing there as well? >> caller: that's right, betsy. and the prosecution said people would be disappointed throughout society if there was a non-custodial sentence. the judge kept saying it is not her role to satisfy whatever the community says. this is not a popularity

contes she said, during her sentencing remarks. but certainly, when she got to the sentence, she said people might be disappointed with a non-custodial sentence. so perhaps that was one of the factors that she considered that led her to this five-year sentence. >> thank you for joining us live this morning. i know you have been in the courtroom today, and you will continue to follow this story as it plays out. we do appreciate your time today. and i want to bring in eric guster. let's just talk overall about the big picture of this verdict. now that we've learned that he will be spending five years in prison. now this is before any appeal. we don't know how that's going to play out or how much true time will be served. but do you feel like people will see this and say, it's a fair sentence? >> some might. however, this was the lowest level of homicide that this man

could have been convicted of. and a lot of people are very upset about that. because she had the option of probation in a non-custodial sentence where this was very, very shocking to some, and this being domestic violence awareness month and different issues such as that, this is a shock to the conscience of so many people that they believe this should not have happened. that he should be in prison for 20 or 30 years for shooting this lady through his bathroom door because so many of us feel that he knew she was behind that door. he knew what he was doing, and he intended to murder her. and that's what a lot of people feel, and they think that even though it's a five year sentence, it's simply not enough. >> and as we look at the appeals process, we're not sure of the timeline of that. watching the defense, though, after the verdict was read, it was almost as if the defense

accepted it. >> it did. it did appear that way. however, from what we've noted, they will probably appeal as well. south african system is a lot different from the united states, because the defense can appeal in the united states. however, in south africa, the prosecution and the defense can appeal in south africa. so when you have both sides who could possibly appeal any type of sentence and try to make it higher or lower, the appeals process is what takes so many years, because both sides can, instead of just one side. >> but while we wait for that, he is headed to prison as we speak. >> yes, he's been taken into custody right now. they've taken him into custody. now they may ask for the judge to release him pending appeals, but i doubt that would happen. >> and as for the prison system, it seems it was made perfectly clear that the prison is able to

handle a person with oscar pistorias's disabilities. >> and judge masipa made it very, very clear. she considered him being a double amputee, considered him being vulnerable at the hands of other prisoners. the defense called witnesses and stated that oscar pistorias would be vulnerable. he may be attacked, sexually assaulted. so, please, judge, don't sentence him to prison, to a custodial sentence. >> that he may be broken in prison with his depression and what he's dealing with. >> yes. and that's something she took into consideration as well as mitigation. however, she had to weigh the mitigation versus the aggravating circumstances and come to a fair verdict, which she feels that she did in this particular issue. >> we're watching right now reeva steenkamp's father leaving the courtroom after they've heard the verdict in the trial

of his daughter's death, that being oscar pistorias getting five years in prison for culpable homicide. obviously his family has to be somewhat relieved although the prosecution wanted ten years maximum. >> they're probably relieved it's over. they're just happy that it's over. because they're finally relieved, after seven months of trials. so many delays, numerous delays in this case. so they're happy that it's over, i'm sure. >> all right, eric guster, thank you. again, oscar pistorias sentenced to five years in prison for the death of reeva steenkamp. first look starts right now. breaking news right now on first look. sentencing day for oscar pistorias. he is heading behind bars. he dressed for ladies and

fashionistas worldwide. and after it fixed fast. new guidelines for health care workers. good morning, breaking news, oscar pistorius will not escape jail time. just a a short time ago, he was sentenced to five years in prison for the killing of reeva steenkamp. the fallen olympian wiped away tears as they call it a right sentence. as for the gun charge, he was given a three-year suspended sentence. the question is where will he be jailed and when. the sentencing capped off a seven-month trial. the fashion industry is remembering a true icon this morning. oscar dela ren ta has died at the age of 82. he was