Oscar Pistorius, a six-time Paralympic sprint champion from South Africa, has been released after serving more than seven years in prison for the fatal shooting of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. The parole process has him living under supervision and subject to restrictions, with authorities not yet detailing all conditions publicly. He is expected to report to parole officers and cannot leave Gauteng province without permission. Attendance at anger management programs is also part of his post-release requirements.
Where the story began
The events unfolded on the night of February 14, 2013, when Pistorius shot his girlfriend through the door of a bathroom inside his Pretoria home. He claimed in court that he mistook Steenkamp for an intruder during the night and that it appeared an unlawful entry had occurred.
He described waking to an unsettling scene, stating that he had moved a fan from the balcony earlier and spoke with Steenkamp, who was beside him in bed. He said he believed an intruder had entered the home through a window without bars.
He added that he was wearing a prosthesis at the time and acknowledged being unable to protect himself effectively, which led him to fire four shots at the door.
Hearing and initial verdict
Prosecutors disputed Pistorius’s account, arguing that the shooting was premeditated murder. A neighbor, Estelle van der Merwe, reported hearing voices at night, including a woman, and described conversations and distress soon after. Other witnesses recalled hearing gunfire and a person crying for help, with some suggesting loud disturbances through the early hours.
The trial extended for more than a year and a half, with case documentation swelling to over 400 pages. Initially, Pistorius faced a harsh sentence of 25 years to life, but the court found him not guilty of premeditated murder.
In October 2014, the defense urged a sentence of three years of house arrest, while prosecutors contended that the maximum sentence could not be less than 15 years given the charge. The final push from the prosecution called for about 10 years, though some requests fluctuated during proceedings.
Judge Thokozile Masipa ultimately delivered a lenient verdict, sentencing Pistorius to five years in prison for negligent conduct, noting that the consequences of negligence cannot always be foreseen. The judge added that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position should have anticipated the potential for deadly outcomes and taken steps to prevent them.
The court also imposed a three-year suspended sentence for violating firearms regulations. Steenkamp’s family’s legal representative expressed that the decision was fair and that they found closure in the outcome.
Legal challenges and a changing path
Under the initial sentence, Pistorius would have served a portion of his term before possible parole, with reports indicating a plan for house arrest at a relative’s residence. The state’s attorney objected, prompting additional court consideration and a reversal of the initial direction.
In December, South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the prosecutor’s appeal and ordered a re-imposition of a sentence. The defense appealed as well, a move that the Constitutional Court rejected in March 2016.
A new sentence emerged in July 2016, raising the prison term to six years, though it did not settle the matter. Following transfers to a facility for disabled inmates in Atteridgeville, the appeals court later increased Pistorius’s sentence to 13 years and five months in November 2017.
Questions about when parole might be sought persisted. The first attempt occurred in November 2021 and was rejected in March 2023. Subsequent efforts continued, culminating in a parole decision that led to Pistorius’s release in early January 2024, after negotiations and appeals across several years.
Release terms
Like the initial sentence, the release places Pistorius under house arrest for the remainder of his term, this time at the home of a relative. Local media noted that the Steenkamp family did not object to the parole and that some close observers expressed continued reservations about the defendant’s narrative. Advocates for rehabilitation emphasized the importance of ongoing psychological support to address behavior patterns and reduce risk going forward. The Steenkamp family, while expressing pain, also underscored a desire for truth and accountability, hoping for a future where lessons from the case inform better prevention of violence against women.
The mother of Reeva Steenkamp, June Steenkamp, reflected on the tragedy and the enduring impact on the family, underscoring the need for continued focus on healing and accountability. The broader public and legal observers have continued to discuss the case in the context of sentencing, rehabilitation, and the risk of recurrence, with experts often called upon to assess ongoing safety measures and mental health considerations.