My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Feminism: Sex & gender discussions

Reeva Steenkamp, Domestic Violence and Injustice

99 replies

CKDexterHaven · 12/09/2014 13:23

Between the internet and television I have been able to watch every second of this trial. Some might call this ghoulish or murder as entertainment but for me it was a rare opportunity to actually see how the system deals with male violence against women. The headlines constantly tell us that justice works for violent men and fails their female victims and here was a chance to see if this was true and see how it works in action.

I was actually pleasantly surprised, from a feminist viewpoint, about the trial. Judge Masipa was rumoured to be an advocate for women and tough on male violence. She and her assessors looked like everyday human beings, rather than the pillars of the establishment we see on the benches of this country. I was also pleasantly surprised by the effort the State made in fighting for Reeva Steenkamp and tearing down the ridiculous story about an intruder. Despite generous bail conditions, that I suspect would never be granted to a poor or black man, Oscar Pistorius, a wealthy, well-connected sporting hero was not treated with kid gloves by the trial proceedings.

From the initial cynicism that Pistorius was too rich to jail, most watching the trial felt that Reeva Steenkamp, at least, was going to receive some kind of justice. She was locked in a tiny, enclosed space, bullets designed to cause maximum injury shattered her pelvis, 'amputated' her arm and blew her brains out, neighbours heard her screams, neighbours called security, one kind neighbour rushed round to see if he could help save her; surely her dead body was enough to make her be believed? Pistorius, on the other hand, was a poor witness, caught out in endless untruths and contradictions. The ballistics, forensics, ear-witness testimony and Reeva's own words about his controlling behaviour and bad temper stood against his ludicrous story.

However, Judge Masipa has found Pistorius guilty only of culpable homicide and one other charge of firing a gun in a public place. I, and most legal experts commenting on the case, am completely bewildered and disappointed in this decision. Masipa swept away virtually all of the evidence as 'circumstantial' and, therefore, unreliable. Pistorius was called unreliable and untruthful and, yet, her findings were based almost entirely on believing his word. A rich, white, good-looking, sporting hero from a well-connected family was given the benefit of the doubt and his version was allowed to stand. Reeva had a whole body of evidence swept aside as 'open to interpretation', whereas one man's word was enough to reach a verdict in his favour. If this is the test then women will never receive justice.

Is this what domestic violence murders down to? If there is nobody to see a woman being murdered then it never happened? A murder happens behind closed doors, there are no witnesses, the murderer lives to spin a tale and the victim has no voice at all? People criticise women for not reporting rapes and domestic violence but what is the point if even your dead body isn't enough to prove you are truthful and all the man standing over it holding a gun only has to say 'I didn't mean to do it' to be believed? Now that I've seen a domestic violence case in action I can't believe how grim and depressing I find the whole situation.

OP posts:
Report
SuperLoudPoppingAction · 12/09/2014 13:31

The only thing I would add is that when women are seen as being owned by men, as girlfriends or wives etc, they're fair game even for murder, and certainly for rape.
When people pressure women to report rapists, they really mean stranger rapists as they're 'a danger to society' as opposed to enthusiastic participants in what George Galloway named the 'sex game'. Men raping their property may be illegal but it's still very difficult to prosecute.
I detest the focus on why men murder their wives/girlfriends. Moving the mustard pot, wrecking star trek dvd's etc. It's reinforced whenever men joke about women nagging them.
Women always have it coming.
Except in Reeva Steenkamp's case, it wasn't possible to portray her in this light. Nevertheless the judge still said her fear of him was part of a normal relationship. Which doesn't really say much for relationships.

Report
cailindana · 12/09/2014 13:43

The ruling is very strange. The judge said he wasn't guilty of murder dolus enventualis because he didn't foresee that his actions would kill whoever was in the bathroom. WTAF? How could any sane person with eyes not foresee that shooting a deadly weapon into a tiny space would kill whoever was in there?

I had high hopes for this trial and am very disappointed.

I agree with everything you say CK.

Report
CKDexterHaven · 12/09/2014 14:10

The more I think about this case the more fucking fuming I become. All evidence is open to interpretation, even forensic evidence. That's what evidence is and that's why we have a trial. It's the job of the judge and the jury to view the evidence, to evaluate and weigh it and then to make an interpretation. How are women ever going to be believed by the justice system if the burden of proof placed on them is to provide evidence that is 100% not open to interpretation? There is no such thing. If a woman's murder was filmed by a BBC news crew would that be enough to satisfy the criteria or would even that be open to interpretation? Do we all have to film every single moment of our lives in order to be believed in the event of our murder?

OP posts:
Report
TheSameBoat · 12/09/2014 14:24

I was majorly pissed off this morning when watching Breakfast TV bang on about the consequences for OP's career, and the toll it's taken on him. Then at the end, almost like an afterthought, the interviewer says "and our thoughts are with the victim's family".

Just awful.

Report
CKDexterHaven · 12/09/2014 14:39

He'll be back starting fights and threatening to break people's legs wherever he goes soon and this will have no impact on his life. He'll be portrayed as the brave man who made a tragic error while trying to protect his beloved, not someone who pumped her full bullets as she locked herself in a toilet to get away from him. He never humiliated her in public, he never went in a foul temper if she spoke to another man and he never punished her for imagined transgressions by driving like a maniac and making her fear for her life.

It just pisses me off that the burden of proof required of women is 100% unambiguity, while men get taken at their word.

OP posts:
Report
MillyMollyMama · 12/09/2014 15:10

I think it also shows the problem of a case being decided by a single judge with no jury. She seems to have discounted a lot of evidence in reaching her decision that a jury may have been more inclined to believe. However the prosecutor was a showman and none of this shows SA justice in a good light. I feel very sorry for Reeva's family because the evidence has not been thoroughly considered because the judge refused to give it credence. A light sentence now I expect followed by appeals.

Report
CaptChaos · 12/09/2014 15:19

Do you really think a jury of 12 good men and true would have found differently?

Rich white men tend to do quite well in jury trials. Especially in SA.

Report
CKDexterHaven · 12/09/2014 15:25

The judge has a reputation for being tough on male perpetrators of violence (or at least that was the spin put on her at the beginning of the trial, I don't think her full track record has been published) but she was remarkably generous and gentle with Pistorius throughout the proceedings. Obviously it is part of her job to be fair and make sure the people giving evidence are at ease but I can't help thinking, when listening to her reasonings in the verdict, that the halo effect applied to Pistorius in this trial. She seemed particularly dismissive of the evidence given by Samantha Taylor, his ex-girlfriend, and of the neighbours, mostly women, who heard screams. She didn't give any weight to Reeva's texts concerning Oscar's abusive behaviour. Sadly even women judges or women on juries seem conditioned to see men more sympathetically and to give more weight to their words.

OP posts:
Report
PetulaGordino · 12/09/2014 16:16

i haven't followed the trial at all really beyond headlines, and it's only now after the verdict when i've read a number of articles that i'm struggling to understand how it wasn't murder

Report
Curwen · 12/09/2014 16:30

Has anybody read about the judge? Does anybody know her history, her life story? Is anybody aware of what she herself has been through, to get to where she is now? Is anybody here a South African legal expert? Can you imagine how insulted she might be over comments like 'Sadly even women judges ..... seem conditioned to see men more sympathetically and to give more weight to their words.'

When you read about her upbringing, and the times she has lived through, and then see comments like that from privileged, white, middle-class women, the mind boggles.

Report
CKDexterHaven · 12/09/2014 17:08

Curwen

Hi bloke! How do you know the women on here are privileged, white and middle-class?

I have read about Masipa. I also think that the law is set up to work in the favour of rich, white men. There are such things as internalised misogyny and the halo effect. Women are conditioned to take the word of men over the word of other women. Women on the juries of rape trials disbelieve and judge the victims as much as the men do. Masipa chose to ignore the evidence presented in this case and based her verdict on the testimony of a man she herself called 'untruthful'. Glosswitch has done an excellent blog post on this which is on this site today.

Samantha Taylor, Pistorius's ex-girlfriend, has told her story to a newspaper and is being vilified on social media as bitter liar. I'm willing to bet if Reeva had been punched, instead of murdered, and gone public with the information her reputation would have been torn to shreds.

Reeva Steenkamp, Domestic Violence and Injustice
OP posts:
Report
cailindana · 12/09/2014 17:20

Curwen, it is irrelevant what she has lived through. She is a judge, a professional, whose job is to apply the law as impartially as she can given the evidence in front of her.

I'm curious, do you agree with me that it's odd that the judge believes that Pistorius picked up a gun and fired it into a very small space four times without intending to kill anyone? If she doesn't believe his intention was to kill, what on earth did she think his intention was? To blow peepholes in the door so he could see who it was?

Report
CKDexterHaven · 12/09/2014 17:25

I would also add on the point of Masipa that feminism isn't just about women succeeding against the odds in a male world and is pretty meaningless if successful women are just assimilated into the patriarchal system. The justice system was set up to work in favour of rich, white men; so what if there are more women working in it if it doesn't change the system itself? We need to get rid of patriarchal systems, not merely be allowed to achieve equality under them.

Having watched the entire trial and seen all the evidence I can only conclude Judge Masipa was instructed by those higher up in the chain to ensure he avoids jail if possible. The verdict was bizarre. It's also notable that, of the lesser gun-related charges, he was only found guilty of the one where guilt was conceded by his council during the latter stages of the trial. He was acquitted of the other two and the reasoning behind his acquittal on the illegal ammunition charge was unfathomable.

OP posts:
Report
CKDexterHaven · 12/09/2014 17:26
  • counsel, not council.
OP posts:
Report
Curwen · 12/09/2014 17:30

Ooh, your gif is cutting Grin

I am not debating the rights and wrongs of the verdict. I am not a legal expert. I probably hold the same views as 99.99 per cent of the world-wide population.

I am discussing how anybody can say that a black woman who grew up in Apartheid South Africa can be unaware of white male privilege. That comment suggests that only feminists can be aware of it due to some higher consciousness or level of enlightenment.

Report
cailindana · 12/09/2014 17:40

The implication is not that she is unaware of white male privilege, it's that we think her strange verdict smacks of the effect of being brought up in a world of male privilege. Being disadvantaged doesn't mean you're automatically aware of all the influences on your thinking.

Report
Curwen · 12/09/2014 18:08

It's possible. Or maybe, just maybe, her knowledge and experience of SA law as pertaining to the facts of this case make her think that it has not been legally proven that he was guilty of deliberate murder.

I know what I think of him. But feelings and gut instincts can't take precedence in a court of law.

Report
PetulaGordino · 12/09/2014 18:11

there are south african legal experts who agree with her decision from a legal perspective and others who don't, so it's not like there is no debate to be had. hers is the decision that holds sway in this instance, obviously.

Report
Curwen · 12/09/2014 18:18

I agree there is a legal debate to be had. But that is not what the this discussion was about. Who here has legal qualifications and/or knowledge of the SA system?

Report
PetulaGordino · 12/09/2014 18:24

if you can argue the legal point then you can discuss the thought processes and background behind what brought one legal expert to one viewpoint and another legal expert to another viewpoint

Report
gincamparidryvermouth · 12/09/2014 18:26

But that is not what the this discussion was about

Have you arrived to tell us what we're talking about?

Report
Squidstirfry · 12/09/2014 18:27

He killed her in cold blood. We all know that but unfortunately as is the case with any trial he is innocent untill proven beyond reasonable doubt of guilt.
Fact was the door was closed and so he didn't see who he was shooting. Whether he had been abusive prior to the shooting (which he had been) does become circumstantial.

Report
Redcoats · 12/09/2014 18:28

She has to work within the confines of the law an the state just didn't do enough.
The ear-witnesses contradicted each other, heard more shots than there were, heard screaming when Reeva couldn't possibly have. How does the judge decide which one to believe? The ones closest to the house support OPs version.

What is horrific is that this man might not actually get jail time. One journo is suggesting that a he may get house arrest for a 'first offence'.

Report
Curwen · 12/09/2014 18:32

Have you arrived to tell us what we're talking about?

I quoted the bit I was referring to. They were CKDH's words, in a discussion she started. What a strange thing for you to say.

Report
Squidstirfry · 12/09/2014 18:34

It's not a white male privilege that there was not enough evidence to prove his guilt.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.