People have reacted with outrage to some of the claims former Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius made in his first TV interview since his girlfriends death three years ago. Pistorius was convicted of murdering Reeva Steenkamp at his home in Pretoria, South Africa, on 14 February 2013.
Among other things, the athlete told UK TV channel ITV he could not disagree with those who believe he should be punished, but added he does not want to waste his life in jail.
If I was afforded the opportunity of redemption I would like to help the less fortunate like I had in my past, he said in the interview, which will be aired on Friday (24 June).I would like to believe that if Reeva could look down upon me that she would want me to live that life.
As some extracts of the interview were published on 23 June, people took to social media to condemn Pistorius, who will receive his sentence for murder on 6 July after his original conviction for culpable homicide was upgraded.
In the interview, Pistorius also maintained he did not kill Steenkamp intentionally and should be sentenced for manslaughter and not murder. He explained he fired four shots as he feared for his life, after hearing noises coming from the bathroom. He told his lawyers: I will spend 10 years in jail for taking Reevas life, for culpable homicide, but I wont spend a day in jail for murdering anyone.
All of a sudden I heard a noise, at the toilet, he said. I presumed it was the toilet door opening and before I know it Id fired four shots.
The prosecution, however, dismissed his version as lies and claimed the athlete murdered his girlfriend following a jealousy row over one of his ex-boyfriends.
Pistorius originally served 10 months of a five-and-a-half-year sentence after being found guilty of the culpable homicide of his girlfriend Steenkamp at his home. The conviction was later upgraded to murder following an appeal by prosecutors.
During the appeal hearing on 3 December, Justice Eric Leach read the murder verdict on behalf of a five-judge-panel at the Bloemfontein Supreme Court. He described the case as a human tragedy of Shakespearean proportions and said that the previous ruling was fundamentally flawed.
