Judge Masipa’s verdict in the Oscar Pistorius trial has caused quite a public furore. Contrary to the public’s chants that Pistorius should burn at the stake, she ruled that Pistorius did not have the requisite intention to commit murder and she convicted him of negligent homicide instead.
The Pistorius trial strikes a cord with the racially divided and gender-barricaded South African society. Depending on your views about inequality and privilege, Pistorius’ whiteness, maleness and wealth are either a disadvantage or an immense advantage.
The question I ask is whether any of this should matter. Should Pistorius’ whiteness, maleness and wealth matter in a discussion about whether justice has been served?
My answer is yes and no (so possibly not an answer at all). If you do not find my answers compelling, I hope you at least find my questions useful.
Oscar Pistorius’ Whiteness, Maleness and Privilege
Why should Pistorius’ whiteness, maleness and privilege matter in a discussion about crime and justice? I have found a few noteworthy points.
On the one end, there is the view that Pistorius’ whiteness, maleness and privilege shape the public discourse about his guilt or innocence and, ultimately, the gravity of the punishment meted out on him. Put more crudely, that Pistorius enjoys a perception of innocence and public support because he is white, male and privileged.
There is a perception in South Africa that whites (in general) are less prone criminal to behavior. This perception, however nonsensical it is, shapes the public’s opinion on Pistorius.
Further, that justice in South Africa is an expensive commodity, bought or sold by those who have the means. Oscar Pistorius, as a rich person, has the necessary resources to “buy justice”.
First, through hiring an expensive legal team — which is outside the realm of the imaginable for many South Africans — Pistorius has ensured that his side of the story is properly heard and properly interrogated by the courts. Second, through elaborate public-relations machinery, Pistorius has shaped public opinion (possibly) in his favour. For example, many, myself included, have asked who benefits from the “Oscar Trial Channel” on DSTV – Africa’s largest satellite television.
This view says that that “justice” is relative to Pistorius’ wealth and privilege. Even if he is sentenced to jail time, his conditions will be many times better than the average prisoner. A video posted by the “Waterkloof Four” of their time in prison showed that prison conditions are better for wealthy white males.
Finally, this view says that victims of the rich are victims twice. Reeva Steenkamp and her family have disappeared behind the skyline of Oscar’s privilege. They are unseen, unheard, overshadowed by his spotlight.
On the other end, and quite antithetical to the view above, there is view that Pistorius has the odds stacked against him because he is white, male and privileged. Here, the argument is that majority of South Africans are generally prejudiced towards white males. Thus, Pistorius is condemned “guilty until proven innocent,” which means his case is unfairly debated because the public wants to make an example.
Should it matter?
Firstly, NO! Oscar Pistorius’ whiteness, maleness and privilege should not matter in a conversation about justice. The phrase “justice is blind” is not an abstraction, and it should not be.
The courts should treat a rich white male in the same way they treat a poor black woman. In my view, and despite a Time article suggesting otherwise, the courts in South Africa do this quite well. Race , gender and status goes not influence the court decisions. However, at an institutional level, race and privilege are intractably linked to resources and one’s experience of the judiciary.
The prison system is outside the purview of the courts and it needs fixing, for the rich and the poor, blacks and whites.
Secondly, YES! Access to justice is a major problem in South Africa. Equality is an intrinsic element of “justice”. Therefore, if the system treats the rich and the poor differently, then there is no justice at all. The experiences of those who cannot afford top-tier lawyers like Barry Roux is considerably worse. They spend years incarcerated without bail, either because they cannot afford bail or because a public defender is not bothered to argue for bail.
Pistorius shines a spotlight on these challenges and should rightly spark a public debate about fairness in the justice system. When a case boils down to technical concepts, having a well-trained, highly experienced lawyer is an accused’s only hope.
However, we must be nuanced in our discussion about these differences, especially race and gender. We should not caricature race, gender and privilege unnecessarily. We must be responsible in our discourse, so as not to condemn an accused before the courts have decided on his or her guilt or innocence.
In a racially and gender divided society such as South Africa, inflammation is a real and persistent risk. A good example of this is how Judge Masipa’s race and gender are being debated, when they have nothing to do with her decision!
Comments
Share On
