I recently came across this rather interesting article in the Miami Herald: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/901828.html
Obviously (I think it's obvious at least), a convicted murder roaming the streets is not such a good thing, especially when the felon in question has escaped his just punishment. Assuming the two men mentioned in this article are guilty of the crime, your reaction is what?
Who is to blame for this? Is the justice system the actual problem? A defendant is guaranteed the right to a fair trial of course, so should this right change somehow? If the goal is to keep our society safe from both violent criminals and corrupt government officers (whether it be a police office, a district judge, a prosecuting attorney, a local mayor, etc.), can anything be done to ensure incidinces such as these do not occur again?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My initial reaction to the article was disbelief. How could the attornies be so stupid as to let their tempers get the better of them? Their lack of self-control allowed a murderer to walk free! Of course I would never want someone like that back on the streets, but like Prof. Lisenbee said defendants are guaranteed the right to a fair trial. If we try to change that right just so that incidences like this don't happen again, we would be compromising the foundations that our judicial system is built on. I can't really think of a way that this could be prevented, other than making an example of the two attornies. Again, it is sad to hear that such a corrupt person is out in society again, but I don't think their is anything you could do legally.
ReplyDelete-Shelby Buxton
Well I believe that our justice system has many different procedures to be followed. I believe that this all could have been avoided if the judge would have not called the second mistrial. The judge should have known that by calling the second mistrial it would allow Chipinoff to go free. Due to the severity of this crime the judge should have had better judgment. This crime was not only disgusting, but it was a crime against a senior citizen, which by law carries harsher punishment. I hope that this story is publicized across the nation so that it does not occur a second time.
ReplyDeleteThis is insane. The court system loves to spend money and not keep us safe. The person to blame for me is the lawyer who actually accepted the second mistrial, he should of known the man would be left free. If I was a lawyer and all the evidence points to the man being the killer, I will prosecute. I really don't think nothing can be done, because there are a lot of corrupt people in the world. We need a lot more truthful people in the world to out number the corrupt.
ReplyDeleteMany things about law have been said throughout the years. Whether it be that the law system is just, unjust, or people who simply just don’t care, law is law. Was O.J. really innocent? Are the estimated 8% of criminals inside a Texas jail who have been convicted wrongly, guilty? Unfortunately, that is not for us to decide. Whether the matter can or can’t be challenged, we have to rely on the final verdict in order to move on.
ReplyDeleteThese common criminals are obviously guilty. Regardless of whether it be a sex fetish gone wrong or a cold blooded murder, death happened. The other murderer got sent to jail immediately. Why was it so hard to say Morales is just as guilty? Obviously we had a problem on our hands. The Miami-Dade Assistant State Attorney fueled the fire for what happened. It was his job to get this man convicted, he obviously did not do his job right.
Our laws are our laws. We live by them, and persecute based on them. We can’t say “no, let’s overlook this law and follow this one instead.” It is not the way it works. The law system is at blame if this man is to go free. At the same time the law system persecutes most times fairly. Unfortunately, this appears to be one of the instances where the law worked in the favor of the criminal. I think the criminal system will never be able to be perfect, nothing is. We have to take it for what it is.
I do not understand how someone who committed such a horrible crime might actually get away with it. I blame all of this on the judge because of the mistrial. Actually, I think it is everyone's fault. The attorney's should not have agreed to it either.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe the right to a fair trial should change, but I do think that they should be smarter about what they are doing and who they are letting free. It scares me to think that someone who murdered someone might actually be roaming the streets soon. It does not make me feel like I am safe.
Honestly, I do not know what can be done except to be a little smarter about things, and to not let people who deserve to be in jail for the rest of their lifes free.
-Alicia Felix-
I believe that all of this could have been avoided, regardless the law. I know that nothing is perfect, not our law system, not the judges, not the attorneys, nothing. If this world was perfect, then innocent people would not be in jail, and criminals would not be walking the streets. What happened here with Elias Chapinoff is a rare case. But I believe that if this man is a murderer and if it was proven, he should have gone straight to jail. I do not understand why the judge declared the second mistrial. He should very well know that he could be setting free a criminal.
ReplyDeleteThis is the lawyers and judges fault. The lawyers should have been dealing with this trial professionally and not fighting childishly. Also it seems like the judge didn't think before he opened his mouth by calling a mistrial and now giving a murderer a chance to walk. I don't believe criminals should have a fair trial when it's for sure proven they are at fault. It wasn't fair when they were committing their crime.
ReplyDeleteObviously and unfortunately, this is not the only time that something like this has happened in America. Guilty men and women all around the country end up free because of loopholes in the judicial system. I believe this all is completely wrong; I also believe that this specific event is not just because of one person. Everyone involved has something to do with Chapinoff's freedom. The two attorneys were wrong for acting unprofessionally and letting their anger get the best of them; Chapinoff himself was wrong for letting the crime escalate to the level it did; and perhaps the judicial system itself is wrong for letting obviously guilty men go free. I feel like there needs to be another law put into place that prevents things like this from happening, although I think that even just one small rule change will affect and disrupt the entire judicial system. For example, if the number of mistrials allowed becomes three instead of two, many people who have been free for years will be placed back into jail or court, and millions of taxpayer dollars would be spent on them. I personally don't think I would mind this, but I know of many people who (rightfully) would. This case, just like many cases out there, is highly controversial and of course quite agggravating. Reform of the judicial system is needed and necessary...I'm just not sure what can be done.
ReplyDelete- Stephanie Sims
Considering that the trial should not have been called a mistrial, I would say that the fault rests on the judge. Regardless of how idiotic the lawyers acted, the judge should have been able to gain control of the situation and bring order to his courtroom. The lawyers should have been reprimanded and replaced for their misconduct and the trial should have continued.
ReplyDeleteSince the alleged murderer is probably going to be set free due to the negligence of the judge, assuming the trial alone was enough to scare the murderer, I do not believe that he will actually go out and kill again. What is sad, though, is that regardless of whether or not he is freed and never commits a crime again, he would have gotten away with murder and that is just not acceptable.
as stupid as i may sound, i really do not understand the article. there are way to many names, way too many things happening, im just not sure what to think. based off of other comments and what i did understand of this article, i feel that the lawyers were immature in the way they acted. how do people like that even become lawyers in the first place? that is a professional job, not something worthless. also, the judge was stupid for claiming it a mistrial. he was impatient. i swear, how do people like this land these jobs?
ReplyDeleteand about the murderer being let loose, i think that its just gonna give the law a good way to learn a very important lesson. i doubt i or anyone i know/care about will come into contact with this guy, as selfish and optimistic as that sounds, so im not really...alarmed. good luck to society, i guess.
-camille gonzalez
I believe that if anyone is to blame in this case it is the judge. Declaring a second mistrial essentially exempted the two men from the legal process, whether they were guilty or innocent. The crime doesn't lie in letting two murderers go free, it isn't our place to say who is guilty or innocent without a trail.
ReplyDeleteBut since the trial never came to a conclusion, then nothing can be done. It just seems a shame that a judge, supposed to be educated in legal proceedings would just toss out a case like this over a lawyer's spat.
My initial reaction to the article was shock. I couldn’t believe how someone who committed such a horrible crime could be let free without paying for what he did. In this case, both the judge and the lawyers are to blame and not the justice system. The lawyers are to blame for acting immature and not taking their job or what they were there for seriously, and the judge for not bringing order to the courtroom. In this case the judge should have been smarter and not called it a mistrial. It doesn’t take much to know that a murder shouldn’t be out on the streets. When it comes to situations like this nothing can be done. You will always come across dishonest people, whether it is lawyers, judges, or police officers. The only thing we can do is hope that something like this doesn’t happen again.
ReplyDeleteThis has to be entirely the judge's fault. Are you trying to tell me that the judge couldn't control 2 rowdy attorneys to progress in the trial? Im sure many court rooms are filled with tension and anger, but it should be the judge's duty to control everyone and keep them in their place. I think Mr. Dennis Murphy should be relieved of his duties for dropping the ball on this one.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a law major so maybe i dont understand all of the legal terms being thrown around. I understand that double jeopardy is that a person cannot be tried for the same offence twice. But what if the suspect is found neither innocent or guilty? If he is innocent, then he should not be tried again, but he was never declared not guilty. Law is just a giant book of loop holes and if you find the right one, you can keep murderers out of jail.
I must admit I have a tendency to blame regulatory structures and protocol rather than individuals themselves. Thus my initial reaction to this article, was embodied in the trite but no less valid phrase "we have a broken system." Upon closer inspection, I realized it was not so much the "system" that is at fault, than the judge himself. By no means should contentious behavoir between two lawyers justify a motion for a mistrial. Volatile emotions in a court room are implicit of the belligerent quality of a trial. Although this does not condone the childish behavoir that the lawyers exhibited, it is understandable that such behavoir may occur in such an intense environment. What is not understandable, however, is a judge who is not able to assert authority over his courtroom. Furthermore, it is completely ridiculous that the judge, who should be pedantic when it comes to due proces, made such a careless decision. I am all for respecting a person's legal rights, but what about my right--to be safe? Thanks to this judge's negligence, Chapinoff is one more reason for me to wary as a resident of Miami.
ReplyDeleteIt is scary to think how many trials happen like this one. No convicted murderers should be let free, but apparently it happens. Who is to blame? In this case, the attorneys should have been professional, the judge should have thought about the consequences of calling a second mistrial, and the felon should not have been set free. It is difficult to side with this case. I think it is important to keep the right to a fair trial, but in this case the result of a fair trial let a murderer go free. I guess I would’ve liked to see the rules perhaps bent for this case, but then again that would not be fair to people in other cases. Basically, nothing could have been done.
ReplyDeleteI'm usually not surprised when I hear about my fellow humans doing something stupid, but this is on another level. It's ridiculous how much blame there is to pass around in this case. Chapinoff is a twisted individual for his role in the homicide. Ranck, the state attorney, seems to have been the one instigating the conflict. The defense attorneys claim that Chapinoff was a gay hooker hired by Morales is totally outlandish. The judges half baked decision to declare a mistrial is the worst of all.
ReplyDeleteThe system isn't at fault in this situation. Everyone involved is.
The sad part is that nothing (nothing realistic at least) can be done to protect us ordinary citizens from corrupt cops, judges, and mayors.
I believe that the main error in this was the judge's decision to call a mistrial. I have no "real" knowledge of how the criminal justice system works but perhaps there could have been an alternative to the judge simply calling a mistrial due to two incompetent lawyers. If it's true that a decision like this would would make another trial unconstitutional, then the judge should have taken that into account before he chose to declare a mistrial. It's his responsibility as judge to fully consider the pros and cons of his decisions before he makes them. Couldn't it could be argued that the rule for double jeopardy was only meant to prevent citizens legally found innocent in court from being tried again and that it wasn't intended to be used against cases where someone is only released due to mistrial? I suppose that argument would be irreleveant since the original intention of a law is too ambiguous and, therefore, isn't considered when carrying it out. Unfortunately, there is probably nothing that anyone can do at this point in the situation (short of waiting for the accused murderer to commit a completely different crime). In the end, perhaps the judge came to a hasty decision because he was shocked at the extraordinarily immature behavior of the lawyers.
ReplyDeleteI find lawyers to be unprofessional and just as unruly as the criminals they are defending either way the crime committed was a horrible offense. I find that the justice system in a way is to blame for this error and I still don’t truly understand what is occurring in this article. The fault of our corrupt justice system letting a murderer back on the streets is a horrible idea and I don’t see how money can be so persuasive to lawyers who will fight for their own defendant even when the defendant has a past criminal record. I find that to not let these instances occur again we must become more involved in what goes on in our society as far as jury duty goes and as far society is concerned. We could possibly vote on a way to put more checks and balances on our communities processes of trail and justice. It seems as though we are focusing to much on the bickering lawyers , who seem to be causing a commotion to distract from the current situation in order to free this convicted man. A dirty tactic that in effect seems to be a result of money talking .-anna miorelli
ReplyDeleteI feel like it's the judges fault. Having the attorneys argue has nothing to do with whether or not the defendent had a fair trial. If facts were presented correctly, the jurors aren't biased, and the defense attorney does a decent job then the trial went correctly. If they have sufficient evidence to prove he actually is the murderer and it couldn't be anyone else then why should he be let free? The last thing Miami needs is an extra criminal on the streets.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the justice system has many flaw. The attorneys arguing and getting in each others face didn't really make a big difference. The fact of that matter is that we are letting a convicted criminal that was sentenced to a life in prison go because of our bad judgements and the court system. The focus seemed to be on the lawyers arguing which is normal but all the attention was focused on the two lawyers instead of the trial at hand with a convicted felon. We can't really do much from this to happen again because the system is the system and we go by it which has many loop holes that allow a convicted felon to be set free.
ReplyDeleteThis happened in 2001 so the defendant obviously had enough time to come up with a ludacris story like the one presented. Anyone with sense can see that the story was made up. The man was dead before they tied him up. If it were true they would have called for help. If the other guy involved has already been sentenced to life so should he. He should be found guilty and call it a day.
ReplyDeleteI think it's absolutely ridiculous that this man might be set free because his lawyers had an immature fight in the court room. The purpose of the law is to keep us safe, and because of something the lawyers did, the actual murderer is going to be set free? Horrible. And what was the judge thinking? There had to have been something else he could have done than to simply say mistrial. If I ever find myself on trial, I'm going to pay my lawyer to start a fist fight and see how that goes.
ReplyDeleteIt's occurrences like this one that make me remember an old saying often quoted by anarchists: law is not justice.
ReplyDeleteWhen we depend on those higher up to administer justice for us, they're bound to screw up. Our judicial system is the best of it's kind, but there are too many technicalities that can be exploited. I'm not an expert on law, but I assume that enough effort can get rid of these technicalities.
The lawyers in question had nothing personal on the line in this trial, the only thing that they cared about was a paycheck. They say it takes a personal detachment to be a good lawyer, but in this case, it seemed to be the exact opposite. Just my observation.
- Marcos Gonzalez
The first thing that came to my mind when I read the article was, is this a joke? it sounds like a bad comedy movie. I think this problem is everyboy's fault, every part in this process was a game, letting go and pulling back like passing a ball. From a case like this where a life of someone was brutally ended, I assume that the trial should have been solved in the first two seconds, is incredible how a group of professionals can even think of the possibility of letting a murderer out in the streets. We all need a fair trial, but we all need the right justice too.
ReplyDeletePaula Gutierrez
I think that the ending of this story was a sad one because he was not brought to justice by the "justice system". I think that the government and its subset agencies are very corrupt and that most of the time that they do what is easy and not necessarily what is right. Most of the time doing the right thing is more time and work. It’s the sad truth and this story was a fine example of what goes on all of the time in real life.
ReplyDelete-Yvette Jordan
Astonishment: was my first reaction reading this article. Followed by an overwhelming amount of shame in response to the way the two attorney's bickered unprofessionally, and relentlessly. The second thing that occurs to me is, "do these lawyers honestly take their job seriously?" It's angering. They're much more concerned about covering their own asses than their clients. I think the economy continues to affect us as the 'situation' worsens. Hopefully, that's not the case. Let's hope for the best?
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised by the outcome, especially in today's society. We've seen this before with O.J Simpsons case. It pays to have a good lawyer even if you are guilty. In this situation the evidence pointed straight towards the one convicted, but what got in the way was relationship between the two lawyers. The judge was even fed up and called it a miss trial based on that. The whole outcome is ridiculous. I'm sadden that justice was not able to be met here.
ReplyDelete- eva hiers
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase, "freedom for a convicted murder", sounds ridiculous. Then for it to actually be true is bizarre. Not only is it bizarre but dangerous for the community.
ReplyDeleteWith little that I know about law and the court system, after reading the article, I know something is unjust in this picture.
The lawyers were both at fault for the way they conducted their behavior in the courtroom; Smith and Ranck should be held accountable for their actions. Ranck was out of control when he said "You a**hole." That was not professional or appropriate in the judicial courtrooms.
Judge Murphy is to blame for outcome of the case. He was the judge of the courtroom and matters were in his hands. He had the most responsibility and should have made sure the right verdict was reached. With all the evidence the lawyer presented, Judge Murphy should have common sense to see the truth. A defendant has the right to fair trial and that should not be changed in any way, shape, or form. This situation can be prevented from happening again. But it is up to the people to speak up and the higher courts to take action.
~Britanya Woodstock
I'm feeling utterly disgusted right now. That article was an excellent example of a few things. First off, this so called "justice system" is horrendously run. Am I wrong or was there a man killed because of these two pieces of garbage..? You're going to tell me that a KILLER and THIEF is going to be allowed his freedom basically because they gave him a run-around...? That they just made him appear in court one too many times... absolutely retarded if you ask me. Secondly, this article proves what scum lawyers can be. What they'll do for a quick buck. I could not live with myself knowing that I aided a criminal get back out onto the streets. I almost want to see that come and bite that lawyer right in the ass. Something along the lines of him successfully defending a guilty man, then that same guy goes and kills the lawyers wife for example... What would that lawyer do..? Lastly, building on the whole lawyers are scum thing, it's despicable to me how the attorney for the defendant basically called the deceased man a blatant homosexual when there is absolutely no proof that that has any validity. Defacing a dead man who has no rebuttal is one of the lowest of lows.
ReplyDeleteD. Garcia
This is just one of the many flaws that the justice system frequently experiences. This could have been avoided if the county would hire better attorneys. The county instead chose Ranck, an inept lawyer(even as Miami-Dade's assistant attorney). An adept lawyer would have made sure to avoid the confrontation with the defense attorney to avoud the mistrial. Untimately, the defense found a way to cheat the system and give their murderer of a client freedom. This is a case of one lawyer's ability to find the other lawyer's weakness.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all our judicial system is far from perfect, but for the most part it is fair and delivers a proper verdict. For this system to work properly it needs experienced and intelligent people in charge. I believe that the judge did not make a right decision by letting this guy go free on the streets. I also believe that the lawyer is at fault for causing the first mistrial. But i feel that overall our judicial system works and that this was a rare case of bad judgement.
ReplyDelete-Abraham Rubio
ReplyDeleteLet me start out first by quoting Anthony F. Sanchez, Chapinoff's appellate lawyer. He said he is "...happy to know that we have an independent judiciary capable of making the tough, even unpopular decisions which ensure the preservation of our most cherished liberties."
Our judicial system is one of fair treatment. And as many might have commented, it is not perfect. But, that is how it is set up, and judges and attorneys must follow it as is. Sometimes it causes criminals like these to go freely back into society, and sometimes it causes the imprisonment of those that are innocent of the crime. But, it also lands in the hands of judges and attorneys.
Our judicial system is not the problem, but we can say that the judge has made a mistake in calling the second mistrial after the jurors have been sworn in. But, what has been done has been done, and we cannot charge him again. He has the right to his freedom again, and hopefully, he doesn't do another crime for people to fall victim to. And this is something that would hopefully be a lesson to insure that an error like this doesn't happen again.
My reaction is one of disbelief. The decision of the Third District Court of Appeal, the inability of Circuit Judge Dennis Murphy to control his courtroom, and of course the attorneys immature behavior are all unbelievable. Everyone is to blame for how such a serious case like this was handled. I am annoyed and displeased by the fact that a double jeopardy was decided allowing Elias Chapinoff his freedom, even though the evidence existed and proved him guilty. I would not be as infuriated by the Third DCA's decision if the trial had not pointed in any direction, neither making Chapinoff culpable nor proving his innocence. But reversing a decision when the trial had already come to a conclusion leaves me perplexed and astonished, especially since this case dealt with a convicted murderer.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the many reasons I loathe the judicial system, if it is not making a mistake like this it is making it somewhere else. For example, holding a trial with the defendant guilty until proven innocent, and not the other way around, is something the justice system will sometimes exercise. The right to a fair trial is the least the "justice" system can do even if the trial is run inappropriately. The right to a fair trial should not be changed or taken away, as the only way it becomes corrupt is from the individuals participating in it. It is human nature that allows for these things to occur, such as the inability to control tempers or have patience over serious matters. Human nature negates us from ever truly having an objective and unbiased opinion on such controversial subjects.
If the two men mentioned in this article are indeed guilty of murdering a 70 year old man, then they should get the same punishment all murderers get, and go to jail. If their charges are dropped for no good reason then I think they are the luckiest two men that ever lived. Getting off charges like these is like winning the lotto; it never happens. The law says if a case becomes a mistrial, charges against the defendant will be dropped. However, if this is the case, every person being charged for anything would try to get a mistrial for their own case. I do not think Elias should get off murder charges just because two attorneys were arguing. I personally think that Judge Murphy was getting paid a little extra on the side to call for a mistrial, not once, but two times. The judge is to blame because he did not have any real cause to call for a mistrial. Elias already admitted he was there when Elso Morales died. Saying “Morales hired the young men for an illicit rendezvous and died accidentally after asking them to tie him up during sex”, sounds like a pile crap to me. Elias should at least go to jail for accidently murdering him if that was the case. I think a judge that knows what he is doing should be in charge and the one that don’t know what they are doing such as Murphy should be fired. -hannah jazayri
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the judge is the one to blame for the freedom of this murderer. A simple outburst by the attorneys was not enough for the judge to declare the case as a mistrial. He should have been competent enough to have been able to control his courtroom and not allowed this to happen. I think the law should exempt this rule of disorderly conduct when it comes to something as important as a murder case. It seems like the judge was more concerned with the “rules” and protecting the murderer’s rights to a fair trail rather than wanting justice to be made. The murderer should have never been allowed to be set free under any circumstances. This was not the first time he had a mistrial, so why couldn’t they find a judge and lawyers competent enough to lead a fair trial?
ReplyDeleteAssuming that both men are guilty for the crime committed, my reaction is utter disbelief. I cannot believe that someone who was involved in a homicide has the chance to be a free man. I find it both the lawyers fault, as well as the judge. The lawyers should have acted professionally from the beginning, and the judge should have had control in his courtroom. The judge, I believe, could have made a different decision in response to the situation, instead of one that could really put other people in danger, by potentially having this "criminal back on the streets." I find it a rash decision that the judge made, just not to deal with the bickering of the lawyers. This situation proves to me that the judicial system has internal problems, and isn't as perfect as maybe people hope it to be. The system is supposed to help keep the community safe, and with obvious mistakes being made by someone in high authority, leaves me astonished.
ReplyDeleteSteffi Guba
First off..any criminal that is let go to live among us even if not declared guilty should at least be behind bars until he pronounced innocent or guilty. This man could have committed this murder and could commit more while not behind bars. I think the government is to blame for this because they are the ones calling mistrials therefore resulting in a possibly convicted murderer on the streets that our families and children share.
ReplyDeleteI think this case is ridiculous. It doesn't make any sense to let a guilty man free. The article said that the other alleged murdered was convicted for first degree murder and the other guy wasnt? That just doesnt make any sense. I find it extremely irresponsible on behave of both lawyers and judge. There are many fault t our present day judicial laws, but at the same time I agree with the fact that everyman has his own rights. But if those rights are abused then no man should go without paying the consequences. It seems that this guy truly did murder the 70 yr old man, and I find it horrible that he will be out on the streets once again.
ReplyDelete- Jorge
In my honest opinion, the legal system in the united states is flawed. its stupid(and i mean stupid)to allow a convicted felon...murderer to walk the same streets as law biding citizens without serving time(punishment) for his actions(assuming he is guilty). "You do the crime, you serve the time". In this particular case i believe that it was a joint screw up on behalf of the judge and the lawyers. it is childish and infantile for two grown men of such prestigious status to fight in a courtroom. they could have been civil and argued outside on their own time. the judge has more to blame then the lawyers, he has the final word in his courtroom and as such should have ejected the aggressive lawyer out of the courtroom, or charged him with contempt of court. now due to a idiotic ruling a murderer will be granted undeserved freedom. this criminal is innocent until proven guilty, and has the right to a fair trial. yet Elias Chapinoff has not had a fair trial. unfortunately because of the double jeopardy law he cant be tried again, and i think that's unfortunate. but if they break the rules for him they will have to do it everyone.unfortunately this has not and will not be the last time a criminal gets off easy. no human is perfect, all humans have their own biases, dislikes, and preferences. unfortunately those upholding the law are no different. they too have biases, and although they swore to uphold the law to the best of their abilities...they might overlook something. all i can say is that the this falls on the judges shoulders and its going to be in bedded in his contentious if this murderer kills another innocent person. all we can do as bi standing citizens is hope that those who swore to protect use of harm are truly doing their best to judge and fight crime.every once and a while one falls throught cracks of the proverbial "system" and in this case it was Elias Chapinoff.
ReplyDelete--Joseph Machin
Wow! I am totally surprised. This is a simple case get the bad guy and put him in jail. What's even more surprising is the behavior of the lawyers. How immature can people be at this age? Lawyers from both sides have their own agendas of protecting their interests but this is silly. The US judicial system is far from perfect and this should be seen as another recent example of how the tax payer's money is being wasted. Letting a guilty man go free is highly surprising, I mean what about looking at the evidence? Were the forensics absent here or something? What's even more annoying is that this is supposedly nine years after the murder. The concept of time is evidently not very important. A dramatic change is highly needed in regard to the legal procedures maybe our President who coined the election based on 'change' will eventually end up doing something about it.
ReplyDeleteWell, the fact is that no one person can be to blame for this obvious flaw in our country's justice system. Sometimes it's the very rules which are designed to prevent chaos that actually cause the chaos. It's a rediculous thought, really. As Martin Luther King put it in "A Letter From the Birmingham Jail," laws are good when they are designed for the well-being of the people, and should not be followed if their effects do otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI truly was surprised when i read this article. The same way that a potential murderer was set free for the behavior of an overly-emotional lawyer, a terrorist bomber or mad rapist could be excused just the same. It's madness, really, to realize that we truly haven't progressed much in terms of ideals since the days of horses and swords. A drastic revision of our faulty laws needs to be done.
I obviously think that letting a convicted murderer be free after he was charged with such crime is a bad thing. What is stopping him from doing this again? Certainly the law isn’t because he did it once and did not have to pay for it. On the other hand maybe he learned a lesson and will not do it again, since he came so close to being locked up for life. But then again you never know, things like that are unpredictable. The blame for this case should be put on the court system, mainly on the rules. I don’t mean the judge or the lawyers who got into the altercation. I simply put the blame on the rule that says when the trial goes wrong he has been taken from his rights of a fair trial and should be let go. There will always be a chance that fights between lawyers or judges will occur and it is simply because it is in the nature of humans. So the rule should changed from setting him free to being given another trial; this because we all know the felon did something wrong and he should be punished for what he did. It is common sense, there is no other way around it. This is just my opinion but firmly believe it is what is right.
ReplyDeleteYou know, ever since the trail of OJ, our judicial system leaves something to be desired. What should have taken place was the dismissal and postponement of the trial. The lawyers should have probably been dismissed and other attorneys should have been called on their behalf.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that should not interfere with the case itself. If the evidence shows him to be guilty for murder, then the courts shortcomings should not stop its sentencing. And, an ex-convicted felon will roam he streets a free man after the idiocy of those who defend the law.
You know, ever since the trail of OJ, our judicial system leaves something to be desired. What should have taken place was the dismissal and postponement of the trial. The lawyers should have probably been dismissed and other attorneys should have been called on their behalf.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that should not interfere with the case itself. If the evidence shows him to be guilty for murder, then the courts shortcomings should not stop its sentencing. And, an ex-convicted felon will roam he streets a free man after the idiocy of those who defend the law.
marilyn c.
The judicial System is so full of these contradictions something of this sort was bound to happen.
ReplyDeleteI do believe however that the fault should be put on the Judge. You would think that someone of his stature would understand the consequences of continuous mistrials. If I had to guess, he probably felt overwhelmed by the fact that he was unable to control the behaviors of two attorneys in his own courtroom.
The fact of the matter still remains that I convicted felon will soon be roaming our streets. I just feel like the system screwed up and doesn't know how to fix it so now they are dismissing it . This could have dangerous consequences...or then again not. It is very difficult to assume the reactions of one single person. Maybe t=just the simple trial process was enough for this felon to realize he never wants to be in that situation again. Or maybe because of the failed process he realized how incompetent the judicial system really is and now feels free to kill at will.
That scares me, because if you think about it, even in the best of situations, if those two boys were hired to have sex with that old man and he was "accidently" killed in the process- they still ran off with his things and didn't call the police, so they are still dushbags, and definately not the type of people to be getting away with anything.
I Think one of the biggest problems with the Judicial system is its lack of exceptions, or usage of common sense. However, who determines common sense, right? I guess it will always be a sort of Catch 22... Just hopefully in the future the oh so intelligent people running these federal systems will know how to act and react so that we aren't forced to let murders loose in the street due to obvious system errors.