Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Why was this man still alive and free?

Dec 12, 2003 12:21AM PST

The Chicago Sun Times is reporting today that David E. Maust, who was convicted of murdering a 15 year old boy in 1981, was released from prison in 1998. He served less than 15 years. Now, he has confessed to killing another teen, and is suspected of killing at least two others.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-bodies12.html

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re: Why was this man still alive and free?
Dec 12, 2003 2:28AM PST

Hi, KP.

I think the blue sidebar tells the story, especially reading between the lines. It's very difficult to make a case stick after 13 years (witnesses have died, moved, or forgotten things, for example), plus his mental history would make it relatively easy to convince a jury he was guilty of second-degree murder (acting on impulse), rather than first. So they made a plea bargain for second off the bat, saving the expense of a trial...
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
I suppose that's correct, but I still find it appalling. (NT)
Dec 12, 2003 3:54AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Huh!
Dec 12, 2003 6:04AM PST
So they made a plea bargain for second off the bat, saving the expense of a trial...

Well since when has the expense of a trial come before the lives of children that he has since murdered.
Justice in our two countries has really gone to pot, and it seems the do-gooders are totally responsible for the farce that is called the law.
I witness an ever growing line of people getting special treatment as psychiatric patients, when they are plainly evil killers who do not have the right to walk this earth with good god fearing law abiding citizens.
- Collapse -
Re: Huh!
Dec 12, 2003 12:27PM PST

Hi, Steve.

if the DA's honest opinion was that they didn't have a shot at first-degree, why waste the money on a trial. Especially because there's always the danger of what recently happened in the Durst trial -- that the defendant's lawyer, figuring that the case for first degree is weak, doesn't ask for addition of the "lesser included" charges (second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter; it's the defendant's option, btw), so that the guy walks completely due to "reasonable doubt" on first-degree.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Thanks Dave - I understand why now -
Dec 12, 2003 12:37PM PST

But don't you think something is very wrong when somebody can walk free simply by manipulating the court procedures?

- Collapse -
So the truth of the matter is
Dec 12, 2003 4:05AM PST

If Maust was executed there would have been at least three children still walking this earth alive.
Instead, after serving fifteen years, he is now out on a killing spree.
People who oppose executions are not the victims.

- Collapse -
That is quite true.
Dec 12, 2003 6:42AM PST

It does illustrate one way the death penalty would reduce the murder rate.

- Collapse -
Yep! Without a shadow of a doubt
Dec 12, 2003 9:28AM PST

I am not saying that every murder should result in the death penalty, since in some cases the evidence isn't strong enough and bad mistakes can then be made, but now that we have hi-tech genetics to prove in some cases %99.99999999 that the suspect was responsible, then I think the safety margin is well within acceptable limits.