Did They Get Away With Murder?

On February 17, 2003, a fight broke out on a very crowded second floor of the E2 Nightclub in Chicago. In order to stop the fight, club security used pepper spray, which caused people to panic and try to escape. However, due to a broken exit, people charged the stairwells, and in the process 21 people were trampled to death. The two owners of E2, Dwayne Kyles and Calvin Hollins, were first charged with manslaughter, but they were found innocent. Then, in 2009, they were charged with and convicted of violating an earlier mandatory court order "not to occupy the second floor" of the nightclub.

However, last Thursday, the Illinois Appellate Court threw out the 2009 convictions, so Kyles and Hollins are now considered innocent of those charges as well. As their main argument in the appeal, the two argued that the court's order was "too vague," and that as a result the order could not be enforced against them. The court came to the conclusion that because of the order's vagueness, the violation of the order was unintentional and that the deaths of the 21 people could not be blamed on the nightclub's owners.

Judge Tosses Guilty Verdicts in Chicago E2 Nightclub Deaths: MyFoxCHICAGO.com

The families of the people killed during the stampede are devastated and appalled at the reversal of Kyles' and Hollins' guilty verdict last week. The lives of their loved ones can never be brought back, and in their opinion, these two men are to blame, regardless of the Appellate Court's ruling.

In my opinion, Kyles and Hollins can argue that the judge's order was "too vague," but regardless, these two men knew they had violated the spirit of the order and the law. To me, it is highly unlikely that the order to "not occupy the 2nd floor" was too vague to understand. Just because something may be vague doesn't mean its purpose and common meaning can't be understood. I understand it pretty well.

Hollins is pictured on the left next to Kyles on the right.

I feel that this idea of a law (or court order) being "too vague" relates perfectly to the civil liberties issues we have been discussing in American Studies Class. For example, the Sedition Act of 1918 ruled against anyone who spoke "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" against the US government. At first glance, this Act seems to be fair and reasonable. But it was not enforced in a fair and reasonable way: suddenly, people were being arrested left and right for uttering "disloyal phrases." From the way the Act was enforced, hanging a flag for another country outside your home might be considered "abusive and disloyal."

The problem with this Act was that the specific words were all so open for interpretation. What makes someone disloyal? When is someone using "abusive language?" Who gets to decide whether you are in violation of the law? This was the issue: The words were just left open for interpretation, they were too vague, and therefore many people were charged with crimes under the Act which they felt didn't fall under the original intention of the Act.

It's similar to the E2 case, although I firmly believe that Hollins and Kyles knew their actions violated the court order. Because of the argument that the order was to vague, broad and open-ended, the owners are now free of charges.

The language of laws can be interpreted in so many ways; it's almost impossible to make the drafters' intentions perfectly clear without getting way too specific. That is why the process of making a law is so difficult and lengthy. It's necessary to continually revise the law until it is believed that the law is clear. But most likely, someone who is charged with violating the law or convicted under it will find a way to make an argument that the law is vague.