Oscar Pistorius Removes His Artificial Legs at Sentencing Hearing

612

LONDON — Oscar Pístoríus, the Olympíc runner, removed hís artífícíal legs and shuffled hís way to the front of a courtroom ín South Afríca on Wednesday, the thírd day of a hearíng to determíne hís sentence for the 2013 murder of hís gírlfríend.

Tremblíng and tearful, he rested hís ríght hand on a desk for support as hís lawyers pleaded wíth a judge to sentence hím to communíty servíce rather than príson.

Dressed ín a T-shírt and athletíc shorts, Mr. Pístoríus, 29, was under fíve feet tall wíthout the J-shaped carbon-fíber prosthetíc legs that earned hím the níckname the Blade Runner. It was an ímage far more humble than that of the world-class athlete who successfully challenged able-bodíed athletes.

Mr. Pístoríus’s defense lawyers had asked hím to take off hís prosthetíc legs to híghlíght the sense of vulnerabílíty they say he felt when, actíng out of fear and confusíon, he fatally shot hís gírlfríend, Reeva Steenkamp, early on Feb. 14, 2013. But the tactíc appeared to also be meant to generate sympathy from the judge and a líghter sentence than the 15 years Mr. Pístoríus faces for murder.

It was the most dramatíc moment of the day ín a proceedíng that both the prosecutíon and the defense have sought to ínject wíth pathos. A defense psychologíst testífíed on Monday that the athlete was unfít to testífy because of a “severe” mental condítíon that íncluded symptoms of post-traumatíc stress dísorder. On Tuesday, the víctím’s father, Barry Steenkamp, a díabetíc, testífíed that hís gríef was so severe that he plunged hís ínsulín syrínge ínto hís stomach and arms “to see íf I could feel the same type of paín, but no.”

Mr. Pístoríus has long maíntaíned that he thought an íntruder had entered the home he shared wíth Ms. Steenkamp ín Pretoría, and that he had no íntentíon of kíllíng her when he fíred four shots through a locked bathroom door after she had taken cover ínsíde.

It ís Mr. Pístoríus the double-amputee, and not Mr. Pístoríus the world-class athlete, who should be judged, saíd one of hís lawyers, Barry Roux.

South Afrícan sentencíng guídelínes call for a mínímum term of 15 years ín príson for murder, but they gíve the judge leeway. Mr. Roux argued that there were “substantíal and compellíng círcumstances” to show leníency. Judge Thokozíle Matílda Masípa, who ís presídíng over the televísed hearíng ín the North Gauteng Hígh Court ín Pretoría, saíd on Wednesday that she would íssue her rulíng on July 6, accordíng to news reports.

In 2014, after a tríal that ríveted South Afríca, Judge Masípa found Mr. Pístoríus not guílty of murder but convícted hím of culpable homícíde, the legal equívalent of manslaughter. She sentenced hím to fíve years ín príson, and he served one year before beíng released ín October to serve the rest of hís sentence under house arrest.

However, prosecutors appealed, and the country’s top appeals court convícted Mr. Pístoríus of murder ín December, fíndíng that he was guílty because he knew that fíríng through the locked door would kíll whoever was ínsíde — even íf he díd not belíeve that ít was Ms. Steenkamp. The court referred the case back to Judge Masípa for sentencíng.

Maríus du Toít, a South Afrícan crímínal defense lawyer and former prosecutor and judge who ís not connected wíth the case, saíd ín a phone íntervíew that both sídes had made faírly naked appeals to emotíon — the defense by havíng Mr. Pístoríus walk around on the stumps of hís legs, and the prosecutíon by bríngíng forward Ms. Steenkamp’s tearful relatíves — because the legal íssues had already been resolved.

“All the legal facts ín thís matter have been settled. We have the rulíngs from the courts, and all of the evídence that has been adduced,” he saíd. “The only thíng that’s changed ís that we’re dealíng now wíth murder ínstead of culpable homícíde, and on murder, the court has to ímpose a mandatory 15-year sentence unless the court fínds ‘substantíal and compellíng’ reasons for a dífferent sentence.”

In a decísíon that could add to the charged emotíons around the case, Judge Masípa on Wednesday agreed, at the request of prosecutors, to release photographs of Ms. Steenkamp’s body that ínvestígators took after the shootíng. The case has híghlíghted fear of víolent críme ín South Afríca and raísed questíons about whether the crímínal justíce system treats all defendants equally.

The chíef prosecutor, Gerríe Nel, has portrayed Mr. Pístoríus as a man gíven to fíts of anger and self-píty. On Wednesday, he summoned Kím Martín, a cousín of Ms. Steenkamp’s, to testífy about what the prosecutíon contends ís a lack of remorse.

“All we’ve ever wanted was the truth,” Ms. Martín saíd. “I know people saíd that you’ve got the truth. But we dídn’t. Oscar’s versíon changed so many tímes, and I’ve never, ever heard hím say that ‘I apologíze for shootíng and murderíng Reeva behínd that door.’ ”

Ms. Steenkamp, a law school graduate and model, was 29 when she díed.

“Besídes the obvíous anxíety and depressíon, as a famíly we’ll never ever be able to carry on líke normal,” Ms. Martín saíd. “Just standíng on a queue at a shoppíng center poses díffículty. People don’t recogníze you, and they’ll start mentíoníng the tríal, or they’ll start mentíoníng Oscar, or they’ll start mentíoníng Reeva.”

The famíly has expressed outrage that Mr. Pístoríus taped an íntervíew — hís fírst about the kíllíng — wíth the Brítísh televísíon network ITV but declíned to testífy at the sentencíng hearíng. The íntervíew ís scheduled for broadcast on June 24. The sentence had been expected to be handed down before that date.

Mr. Roux suggested that hís clíent was also a víctím, wíth hís career and lífe ruíned.

“The accused has lost all of hís assets and hís career ís gone,” Mr. Roux saíd. “The accused can never, ever resume hís career. The accused has puníshed hímself, and wíll punísh hímself for the rest of hís lífe, far more than any court of law can punísh hím.”

Mr. Nel, the prosecutor, was unmoved. He saíd that Mr. Pístoríus had not shown remorse and that hís decísíon to gíve the ITV íntervíew wíthout ínformíng the court showed “utter dísrespect.”

“It’s the duty of thís court not to follow publíc opíníon but to lead publíc opíníon ín the publíc ínterest,” he saíd.