Psychoanalytic psychology, sleep medicine, and the law: Scientifically reviewing Oscar Pistorius’ culpable homicide/murder conviction

• Citation: (2023) 36 SACJ 250
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v36/i2a4
• Published date: 28 November 2023
• Pages: 250-281
• Author: Willock, B.
• Date: 28 November 2023

Psychoanalytic psychology,

sleep medicine, and the law:

Scientically reviewing Oscar

Pistorius’ culpable homicide/

murder conviction

BRENT WILLOCK*

ABSTRACT

In parasomni as (sleep disorders), parts of the brain are a lert, function ing

well, but other regions are not awake, not func tioning. These mi xed sleep/

wake states compromise mental pro cesses in ways that can be su rprising,

and sometimes dangerous to sel f and/or others. Possible parasomni a

should be considered in relation to all v iolent, perplexing events that

occur after ind ividuals fall asleep. Increa sed familiar ity with the scienti c

study of dreami ng and sleep disorders augments ment al health and

legal practitioners’ capacit y to comprehend and assist. Exper t testimony

from these scientic elds c an shift judicia l focus from inappropriate

punishment toward treatme nt and prevention, bringing enl ightened

justice, understand ing, and relief to all part ies. This art icle re-exami nes

the controversial case of Olympic ath lete, Oscar Pistorius, who ki lled his

girlfriend, Reeva Ste enkamp, during an episo de of sudden arousal from

sleep. Both the bail magi strate and the judge underscored m ajor elements

that made no sense in Pistor ius’ narrative. When t hese crucial anoma lies

are approached with knowledge of dream ing and parasomnia, they become

comprehensible, meaningfu l, and potentially tra nsformative with respect to

judicial outcome. Invaluable insights f rom these scientic elds were not

considered during Pistor ius’ trial. If they had b een contemplated and found

credible, the accused might have been found not c riminal ly responsible.

This possible misc arriage of justice m ight be reversed via appeal based

upon these scientic pri nciples.

Sleep medicine and psychoanaly tic psychology have made major judicial

contributions.1 These discipli nes are indispensable for under standing

perplexing legal cases. W ithout expert opinion f rom these scientic elds,

miscarri ages of justice may occur. Familia rity with thes e research ndings

* BSc (McGill) PhD (Michigan); Facult y member Adelphi Universi ty’s Gordon F.

Derner School of Psycholog y.

1 M R Pressman ‘Disor ders of arousal fro m sleep and violent behavior: th e role of

physical contact and proxi mity’ (2007) 30 Sl eep 1039; F Siclari et al ‘Violence in

sleep’ (2010) 133Brain 3494.

https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v36/i2a4

250

(2023) 36 SACJ 250

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

is crucial for legal and menta l health professionals.2 T his article reviews

a well-known, controversial case t hrough these empiric al lenses. The

strong possibility t hatpa rasomnia (sleep disorder) severely impaired t his

defendant’s important cogn itive processing capacity is pre sented. In such

cases, non-pathological cr iminal incapac ity (therefore acquittal) must be

seriously considered in cour ts’ efforts to achieve opti mal justice.

1 Calamity, grandeur, horror

Johannesburg, November 22, 1986: Oscar Pistorius was born with

alarming physical deformities. Before his rst birthday, surgeons

severed his legs below his knees3 – a traumatic start to a challenging,

surprising life. Fitted with prostheses, Pistorius grew to love athletics.

During rehabilitation af ter a serious rugby injur y, he discovered a safer

sport: runni ng. Soon he became The Fastest Man on No Legs. The

rst amputee to compete in the Olympics (London, 2012), Pistorius

inspired multitudes. If he can do that… TIME Magazine acclaimed

him among the world’s most inuential people. Praising his dedication

to helping the disabled (e.g., children whose limbs had been blown

off by landmines), Scotland’s Strathclyde University awarded him an

honorary do ctorate.

It is now common knowledge that on Valentine’s Day 2013, ‘the

Bladerunner’s’ meteoric rise crashed. During the trial it emerged that

after a romantic dinner created by Reeva Steenkamp, Oscar arose

in the night to bring in a tall fan from the balcony doorway. While

closing the curtains, blinds, and door, he heard the bathroom window

opening. Fearing criminals, he grabbed his gun a nd informed Reeva

he would investigate, instructing her to get down, and call the police.

Pistorius screamed at the person(s) in the toilet to leave. They did not

respond. Hearing movement, fearing they were emerging to attack, he

red four bullets. Returning to the bedroom, he discovered Reeva was

not there. Fearing she might have been in the stall, he smashed that

door. Seeing her bloody body, he bolted onto the balcony, hollering for

help. Reeva died in his arms.

The world was stunned. Detective Hilton Botha’s belief was that

another enraged man had murdered his partner. Debate bifurcated

2 R C artwrig ht, MW Mahowald and M A Cramer Borne mann whose contri bution is

acknowledged in B Wil lock The Wrong ful Conviction of Os car Pistorius: S cience

Transforms our Comprehe nsion of Reeva Steenkamp’s Shocking Dea th (2018).

3 T he preceding and subs equent informat ion concerning Pistor ius’ life is deri ved

from the following book s that do not disagre e with each other in a ny areas cited:

JCarlin Chase Your Shadow: The Trials of Oscar Pistor ius (2014); M Ferguson and

PTaylor Oscar : An Accident Waiting to Happen (2014); M Wiener and B Batema n

One Tragic Night (2014); Willock op cit (n2).

Psychoanalytic psychology, sleep medicine and the law: Scientically

reviewing Oscar Pistorius’ culpable homocide/murder convistion

251

https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v36/i2a4

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

between those believing Botha versus t hose accepting Pistorius’

account of what can happen in a country with an ala rming crime rate.

A specially created TV channel broadcast this ‘Trial of the Cent ury’

24 / 7.

2 Past is prologue

When Oscar was six, his parents divorced. Father moved far away.

Mother relocated to a neighbourhood where more break-ins

occurred. When she heard sounds at night, she seized her bedside

gun, telephoned the police, hustled her offspring into her bedroom,

clinging to them anxiously. Ofcers typically assured them there was

no criminal activity. Pistorius learned to react to nocturnal sounds

with instant protective action.

This multi-traumatic background (amputations, parental disharmony/

divorce, home invasions, maternal anxiety/alcohol abuse, and mother’s

death when Pistorius was 15) created core insecurity/mistrust,

predisposing him to becoming jealous, critical and controlling in

romantic relationships4 (e.g., when a former g irlfriend dated a ‘rival’;

when Reeva talked with men at parties).

Just before Valentine’s Day 2013, Reeva told her girlfriend she would

accept a marriage proposal. Inside her card for Oscar, she wrote:

‘Today is a good day to tell you…I love you.’ Her Valentine’s gift to him

was a photograph of them, posed lovingly. Judge Masipa concluded

their relational difculties fell within the normal r ange.5

3 Pistorius’ anomalous account

Bail Magistrate Nair underscored major mysteries in Oscar’s narrative:

‘I have difculty in appreciating why the accused did not ascertain the

whereabouts of his girlfriend when he got out of bed. I have difculty in

also coming to terms with the fact that the accused did not seek to verify

who exactly was in the toilet when he could have asked. I also have difculty

in appreciating why the deceased would not have screamed back from the

toilet. I have difculty understanding why the deceased and the accused

would not of like mind in those circumstances have escaped through the

bedroom door than venture into the toilet. I have a problem also, as to why

the accused would further venture into danger knowing full well that the

4 JG S choltz Forensic Psy chological Report, avai lable at https://juror13lw.les.

wordpress.com/2014/07/scholtz-report.pdf, accessed on 29 Augu st 2022.

5 S v P istorius (CC113/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 793 (12 September 2014) at p 3306.

252 SACJ . (2023) 2

https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v36/i2a4

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd