Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2009 13:39:52 GMT -5
I remember discussing this on the WM3 board several years ago in the OT section. It's not a case where we have an abundance of information available, but based on reading Gary King's "Angels of Death" I believe Alex and Derek killed their father without Ricky Chavis' involvement. One aspect that bothered me particularly was how Chavis got like 30 years for being an accessory after the fact while the kids got less than a third of that for pleading guilty to being the actual killers. While they were very young (and I wouldn't ever consider giving them LWOP) I think it's morally wrong to give an accessory more prison time than the killers.
|
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jul 10, 2009 20:02:04 GMT -5
They were minors, so the possible sentences were probably not as harsh as they would be had they been adults. They also pled guilty, which would lessen the sentence.
As for Chavis, he was an adult and he chose to go to trial. There's a different standard, as there should be.
Chavis should've contacted authorities immediately. He wouldn't be in the position he's in had he done so.
This case was on Notorious or American Justice recently and I decided not to record it. Next time I will.
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2009 11:36:15 GMT -5
What I doubt fully understand and maybe you can educate me, but if the actual killers pled guilty to third-degree murder, how can Chavis be tried and convicted of being an accessory after the fact to first-degree murder?
|
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jul 14, 2009 20:43:05 GMT -5
The boys were initially charged with 1st degree, weren't they? Pleading guilty of a lesser charge or even being convicted of a lesser charge doesn't necessarily mean that the elements of the higher degree of the crime were totally absent.
kma367
|
|
