She meticulously canvassed issues on punishment and decided on a five-year prison sentence for the star sprinter for the negligent killing of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp last year.
The prosecution had asked for 10 years' jail and the defence for three years' house arrest plus community service.
The judge could have decided on anything from a fine and a suspended sentence to 15 years' jail.
Reactions have been mixed.
Although the judge has taken a middle course, it would be fair to say many in South Africa think she should have been tougher.
Many of these same people think Pistorius should have been found guilty of murder rather than culpable homicide, what we call manslaughter.
It is not surprising, therefore, they think the sentence is far too light, especially when in theory it appears Pistorius could be out from behind bars and into home detention within a sixth of the full sentencing time, that is 10 months.
Judge Masipa, a 67-year-old former journalist and social worker, showed maturity as she dealt with the matters, saying the sentence had to be fair and just to both society and the accused.
She had to listen to the public and their feelings but was not there to win popularity contests.
Her role was to serve the interests of justice.
Issues of crime and punishment cover deterrence, rehabilitation, punishment and public safety.
As well, a natural human and public reaction is to seek vengeance on society's and the victim's behalf.
Anger and a basic sense of justice drive people in that direction.
But Judge Masipa said it was important to distinguish between justice and vengeance.
Although the system and sentencing must not be seen as soft - undermining deterrence - the judge's considered attitude should be reflected as much as possible in this country.
Longer and longer sentences, however it might satisfy basic instincts, can be counterproductive and often will not contribute to deeper and lasting justice.
There will still be feelings Pistorius benefited from being white and having the backing of expensive lawyers.
It should be noted, however, that Pistorius was a first offender and that he was not found guilty of murder, with the judge accepting Pistorius had genuinely mistaken Ms Steenkamp for an intruder.
The judge did, nonetheless, point to the ''aggravating'' factor of firing four bullets through the door of a small cubicle.
Judge Masipa also rejected the emphasis on Pistorius' vulnerability and disability.
Jails had to house the disabled regularly, and he had coping mechanisms.
That seems fair enough.
The disabled need to, and usually seek to, live lives as much as possible like everyone else.
That should mean that disability cannot be used as a reason to escape jail.
Whatever the sentence, Pistorius' killing of Ms Steenkamp has ruined his life.
He has gone from being an admired athlete and prominent and respected figure to losing his fortune, his career and his reputation.
He has gone from being famous to infamous.
