Some South Africans said they were surprised and even shocked when Judge Thokozile Masipa ruled last week that the Paralympic champion was negligent but did not intend to kill when he fatally shot girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp through a closed toilet door. Pistorius said he thought a dangerous intruder was in his house; prosecutors alleged he intentionally killed Steenkamp after an argument.
Police protection for Masipa has been stepped up since the verdict Friday in the sensational case, South African media reported. The case will return to the global spotlight when Pistorius, who is free on bail, appears before the judge for a sentencing hearing on October 13.
"In judging, there's a lot of analysis of the information before the court and applying the law to what is before you," Thabang Pooe, a researcher at legal group SECTION27, said today. "Attacking the judge's integrity and making insinuations of bribery or that she's not fit because she's a woman, or that she's black, means that you're breaking down the belief in the law."
The legal groups, including SECTION27, the Legal Resources Centre and the Centre for Child Law, said people are entitled to disagree with the verdict and that the prosecution can appeal. Prosecutors have said they will decide whether to appeal after sentencing.
The sentence for a culpable homicide conviction is at the judge's discretion and can range from a suspended sentence and a fine to as much as 15 years in prison. Legal experts have cited five years as a guideline.
Many legal analysts agreed with the judge's ruling that Pistorius could not be found guilty of premeditated murder.
