Beyond the Verdict: Exploring Disability Stigma in Legal Contexts through the case of Oscar Pistorius

Updated: Jul 24

By Shreya Sunil Joseph

Keywords: Disability, Stigma, Oscar Pistorius, Judicial Bias, Disability Discrimination

I. Introduction

People with disabilities, like other minority groups, have been facing the wrath of stereotypes and prejudicial assumptions for a long time. Society often defines an idealized standard of behaviour and appearance, labelling anyone who deviates as “abnormal”. This construct of a perfect human being, perpetuates ableism, positioning a person with disabilities in a state of inferiority.

These societal attitudes profoundly impact how disabled individuals are perceived and treated. Individuals who function differently are often labelled using terms such as “low functioning” while others are termed as “high functioning” individuals.[1] They are perceived to be helpless and looked down upon with pity. In addition to this, the discourses on disability in the media reinforce society’s perception of persons with disabilities as victims who require help, treatment, or rehabilitation based on their “abnormality, impairment, illness, or a tragic loss of normal, healthy functioning”.[2] Such portrayals not only shape public opinion but also infiltrate legal contexts, by influencing judgments and the process of lawmaking.

This paper argues that biases against disabled individuals seep into the realm of law. To be able to fulfil its role as a driver of social change, the legal system must recognize and mitigate these biases, and strive for impartiality and inclusivity. It begins by examining prevalent social prejudices and then delves into their implications within a legal setup, using the Oscar Pistorius trial as a case study.

II. Societal Perceptions Against Disabled Individuals

It is often society that makes people with disabilities more vulnerable by constantly devaluing them for their differences. Media representations frequently depict them as helpless victims or as extraordinary “supercrips”, thereby reinforcing damaging stereotypes. These stereotypes shape the attitude of the public, which means they might not have an accurate understanding of disabilities. However, these attitudes still influence the daily interactions of disabled people, which further impacts their lifestyles.[3] It has been noted that the major handicap of nontypical children is not their specific disability but the attitude of the general population towards them.[4] Quoting Alison Davis, “If I lived in a society where being in a wheelchair was no more remarkable than wearing glasses and if the community was completely accepting and accessible, my disability would be an inconvenience and not much more than that. It is the society which handicaps me, far more seriously and completely than the fact that I have spina bifida”.[5]

The media also reinforces the image of ‘supercrips’ where they provide instances of disabled people overcoming their disability and becoming “normal” humans. Two kinds of supercrip prototypes identified by Amit Kama are the ‘regular’ disabled who achieve mundane accomplishments which are seen as exceptional because of their disability, and people who accomplish things that nondisabled people barely attempt, and who serve as role models and objects of emulation.[6] This narrative has a negative impact on people with disabilities as it pressurizes them to surpass the constraints put forward by their disability and become successful.

Secondly, labelling the disabled has its consequences. It makes it difficult for them to not just escape from being identified through those labels but as mentioned earlier also contributes to their exclusion and discrimination. Martha Minow says the labelling theory focuses on the majority that assigned the label and created the label’s exclusionary effect.[7] These labels not only shape the public’s assumptions about a person's personality, intellectual ability, and aspirations but also have an impact on the way a parent perceives their disabled child and the way the child perceives them.

Michael Perlin also brings in the concepts of ‘sanism’ and ‘pretextuality’ which he thinks are essential in understanding how we construct people with disabilities. He mentions that disability law policy reflects ‘sanism’ and ‘pretextuality’ at every juncture.[8] ‘Sanism’ as he defines is an irrational prejudice of the same quality and character as other irrational prejudices that cause and are reflected in prevailing social attitudes of racism, sexism, homophobia, and ethnic bigotry.[9] He talks about how this permeates all aspects of mental disability law and its participants like the litigants, counsel, and lay witnesses because sanist ideologies have an enormous influence over lawyers who represent people with mental disabilities.[10] This results in the lawyers trivializing their clients’ issues and credibility. Perlin defines ‘pretextuality’ as how courts accept testimonial dishonesty and engage in dishonest decision-making. It is reflected in decision-making that is infected by racial, class, and gender biases.[11]

Another stereotype faced by the disabled is that of masculine gender identity and disability. People with disabilities especially men must negotiate their disability status as well as their gender status.[12] Since masculinity is often associated with being powerful and autonomous, and disability is associated with helplessness and dependency, disabled men constantly battle with establishing their identity.

III. Legal Implications of Stereotypes Through the Case Study of Oscar Pistorius

The influence of these stereotypes was evident in the trial of Oscar Pistorius. Pistorius, a South African renowned Paralympic and Olympic athlete, became a focal point during his trial for the murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. He was charged with premeditated murder along with other charges associated with discharging a firearm in a public place and possessing unlicensed ammunition.[13] Till this incident, Oscar was portrayed by the media as a ‘hero’ who ‘transcended’ disability to being super-able, thereby subjecting him to the supercrip narrative.[14] His entire trial was broadcast live and for 49 days of the trial, gender and disability stereotypes dominated the public discourse.[15]

Despite the legal safeguards that exist in South Africa’s Constitution against discrimination, biases seeped into Pistorius’ trial. Section 34 of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of South Africa provides for fairness in public hearings and courts are obliged to ensure the proceedings are fair. Section 9 of the Constitution also prohibits the State and any person from unfairly discriminating directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds including gender, sex, and disability, and provides for specific measures for redressal or restitution to ensure fair treatment.[16] However, these laws did not prevent prejudices from entering the courtroom. It has been observed that the prosecution, as well as the defence, relied on stereotypes to build their case. The prosecution invoked the supercrip and hegemonic masculinity stereotypes.[17] They drew on his ‘hero’ image and asked Pistorius “You are a model for sportsmen, able-bodied and disabled, all over the world?” Later, when he got emotional on the stand asked him “Why are you getting emotional now, when I ask the hard questions?” consequently invoking the masculine stereotype of strength, ability, and responsibility, and exhibiting an intolerance for atypical masculinity.[18] They portrayed him as a supercrip that negated his disability, which qualifies him to have the intent and the capacity to kill.[19] Whereas the defence focused on Pistorius’ non-stereotypical gender identity and expression by depicting him as vulnerable and emotional. They even went to the extent of emasculating him, they said “When anxious, he pitches his voice…sounds like a woman”.[20] They argued Pistorius be found not guilty on all charges using his disability and vulnerability to prove he was incapable of doing something like this.[21] This indicates the reinforcement of the helpless and dependent stereotype.

Though the media was widely spreading these stereotypes, fortunately, it did not affect the final judgment. Even, Judge Masipa in her judgment addressed the role of media in influencing witnesses. She said “I continue to explain why most witnesses got their facts wrong. The fact that this case attracted much media attention, especially soon after the incident, and the fact that it became a topic in many homes, also did not assist. I am of the view that the probability is that some witnesses failed to separate what they know personally, from what they had heard from other people or what they had gathered from the media”.[22] She recognized the hold media has on the witnesses and therefore dissociated herself, and her judgment from the influence of media. To be objective, instead of solely relying on witness testimony, she used telephone records, forensic, and other scientific evidence. Speaking about her reliance on objective evidence she stated, “This court is in a fortunate position in that it has objective evidence in the form of technology which is more reliable than human perception and human memory and against which all the other evidence can be tested”.[23] The Judge applied the reasonability test and measurement of the reasonable person to conclude. There are no traces of prejudicial assumptions in the Judge’s application of the reasonability test. She did not entertain the stereotype of the vulnerability of disabled people but acknowledged it. She argued that though it was reasonable for a disabled person to feel vulnerable when in danger, not every vulnerable group resorts to armed violence as a response.[24] In the end, she was able to provide a fair sentence, free from social biases.

IV. Conclusion

As seen in the case above, social prejudices and stereotypes are inevitable in the realm of law. This trial underscored how stereotypes of gender and disability influenced legal strategies and public perception. However, it is possible to prevent them from affecting judgments and the process of lawmaking. The answer to whether the law is an instrument of social change or social inequalities lies in the success of this prevention. Another reason to emphasize the need for bias-free law is to ensure the ideologies of the majority groups do not get enforced on the entire population. Therefore, just like Judge Masipa recognized the existence of these stereotypes and their potential harm and prevented them from affecting her judgment, it is important to follow the same at every stage and sphere of law. The Judge recognized the individuality, agency, abilities, and vulnerabilities of people with disabilities.[25] She was also aware of how influential the media could be in spreading these stereotypes and how that could affect the testimony of the witnesses. Because of this, the court was able to uphold disability rights by ensuring access to justice through evidence-based fairness and reasonable accommodation of persons with disabilities.[26]

The takeaway from the case of Oscar Pistorius is that it is essential to recognize the existence of prejudices and the possibility of them affecting the law. Through this, lawmakers and judges can strive toward being as objective as possible and be careful about not letting these stigmas and biases cloud their judgment. By acknowledging and resisting these biases, the legal system can ensure fair treatment and inclusivity for marginalized communities and help the law fulfil its duty of being an instrument of social change.

References

[1] Emily Ladau, “Demystifying Disability: What to Know, What to Say, and How to Be an Ally” (2021) First edition, California Ten Speed Press.

[2] Maretha DeWaal, “Exploring Gender and Disability Stereotypes in the Courtroom: A Case Example” (2015) 29 Agenda 34 https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2015.1047239

Stadler J, “Media and disability” in B Watermeyer, L Swartz, T Lorenzo, M Schneider and M Priestly (eds) Disability and social change: A South African Agenda, (2006) Cape Town: HSRC Press, 373–386.

[3] Barbara Altman, “Studies of Attitudes toward the Handicapped: The Need for a New Direction.” (1981) Social Problems, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 321–37, <https://doi.org/10.2307/800306 . Accessed 14 Apr. 2022>

[4] Ibid.

[5] John Harris, “Is There a Coherent Social Conception of Disability?” (2000) Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 95–100, < http://www.jstor.org/stable/27718461 . Accessed 15 Apr. 2022. >

[6] DeWaal (n. 2)

Amit Kama, “Supercrips versus the pitiful handicapped: reception of disabling images by disabled audience members”, (2004) Communications 29, 447–466.

[7] Martha Minow, “When Difference Has Its Home: Group Homes for the Mentally Retarded, Equal Protection and Legal Treatment of Difference”, (1987) Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, vol. 22, no. 2, pp.111-169.

Michael L. Perlin, "Simplify You, Classify You: Stigma, Stereotypes and Civil Rights in Disability Classification Systems." (Spring 2009) Georgia State University Law Review, vol. 25, no. 3,pp. 607-640. HeinOnline, <https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/gslr25&i=619.>

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] DeWaal (n. 2)

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.