Guilty of Innocence

     Oscar Pistorius was an athlete who ran in competitions against both disabled and able-bodied runners, while running on two prosthetic legs. He was a role model, a national icon for the disabled. People questioned if he won as many races as he did because of his prosthetic legs and even if they gave him an advantage. Because of his overwhelming success against all odds, he is called the "Blade Runner" because of specially designed blades on the bottom of his "feet". He was revered by many until the night he shot and killed his girlfriend, South African model Reeva Steenkamp. The Paralympic champion was found guilty of "culpable homicide", killing without intention to kill. But was it intentional? Pistorius claims that he thought an intruder had entered his house, so he fired his gun through the closed bathroom door, not realizing he had fired it into his girlfriend. For "culpable homicide" he could serve no time in jail, or spend up to 15 years in prison. The article states, "Even Pistorius's defense rested in part on white South Africans' deep fear of crime and home invasions." Pistorius may be playing off of an issue that is important to many in South Africa, just so he could get off with little jail time and little damage to his reputation. Can he be accountable for murder, or could he be innocent?
    His 2014 trial was judged by Mrs. Masipa, a black woman. Being only the second black female to be appointed to the judiciary, Judge Masipa is a rarity. A trial where a black female presides over a white male would have been previously thought unthinkable. The racial component made the trial even more publicized than it already was. Even though South Africa is around 30 percent white, the minority ruled in that case, denying blacks many rights even in their own land. Pistorius' trial breaks racial boundaries and makes us wonder what innocence is.