The legacy of the 2003 E2 nightclub tragedy, in which 21 patrons died in a panicked rush for the exit, is a series of steps that could help to prevent similar disaster in the future.

According to a spokesman for the Chicago Department of Buildings, the safety measures include:

--A map of the building's exits posted next to each doorway.

--An occupancy diagram posted next to the notice of the building's maximum capacity.  This diagram would help ensure that patrons are not overcrowding one area of the establishment.

--Annual renewal of licensure for "public places of amusement" that has resulted in non-compliance for about 250 of the city's 1,000 regulated establishments.

The disaster also focused attention on how the legal system deals with nightclub operators who might be legally responsible for such events.  Even though regulators took action following the E2 catastrophe, Cook County prosecutors face a more challenging task in affixing blame in the ongoing trial at Cook County Criminal Courthouse.

"It was obviously a terrible tragedy, and there may well be criminal culpability," said Robert Loeb, defense attorney and law professor at DePaul University. "But my impression is that the lines are blurred as to what individual bears responsibility, and ultimately that's where the prosecution has an uphill battle."

Since mid-January, the prosecution has attempted to prove its case against club owner Calvin Hollins Jr., manager Calvin "Nicky" Hollins III and promoter Marco Flores.  Each man is charged with involuntary manslaughter in the deaths of the 21 clubgoers.

Under Illinois law, involuntary manslaughter is defined as unintentional death due to recklessness and disregard of "a substantial and unjustifiable risk...which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation."

A typical involuntary manslaughter case could stem from a death resulting from an otherwise ordinary fistfight.  In the case of the men charged in the E2 case, the prosecution alleges they were reckless in failing to maintain adequate exits at the nightclub.

"Involuntary manslaughter deals with the reckless disregard of risk," said Loeb.  "But to what extent does a supervisor who doesn't lay down the law on employees as far as letting people in past capacity, for example, bear responsibility? Those are the difficult issues."

In a similar case decided last year, Rhode Island prosecutors used manslaughter charges to convict three men responsible for a Feb. 20, 2003, nightclub fire that resulted in the deaths of 100 concertgoers.

"The biggest challenge was educating people about [manslaughter]," said Mike Healey, spokeman for the Rhode Island Attorney General's office.  "The law doesn't focus on the outcome. The law focuses on the actions. Given the extreme loss of life and all the attendant emotion, it's awfully hard to explain to grieving parents or wives that the loss of 100 lives in that awful event is not the same thing as if a defendant took a gun and fired it 100 times separately."

Like Chicago, Rhode Island saw an almost immediate reaction on the part of regulatory agencies.  "If it's possible for anything good to come out of such a terrible tragedy, it spurred an across-the-board overhaul of the fire code in the state," Healey said. "That was long overdue."

William Maakestad is a professor of management at Western Illinois University and co-author of "Corporate Crime under Attack: The Fight to Criminalize Business Violence." In the past 20 years, he's noticed an increase in the use of criminal charges, as opposed to civil or regulatory measures, against businesses and corporations.

"By and large, civil and regulatory agencies do a good job and deal with the vast majority of the cases," Maakestad said. "But when we're talking about health and safety, to have the possibility of criminal liability is a great asset."

Although criminal charges like the ones in the E2 case have historically been difficult to prove, the publicity stemming from high profile cases has made life better for the average citizen as the perception of acceptable risk has changed.

"People are more sophisticated these days," Maakestad says. "People know you don't have to sacrifice safety to make a profit. They don't buy it anymore when a compay says, 'We can't make changes because we won't make money."

Robert Loeb agrees. "We're taking all sorts of conduct more seriously than we used to.  Look at drunk driving, for example. People used to walk away with little or no penalties. That has all changed now."

Whether or not the operators of the E2 nightclub bear criminal responsibility for their conduct remains to be seen.  Currently, the trial is on hold pending a defense motion for directed verdict, essentially asking Cook County Circuit Court Judge Dennis J. Porter to find in favor of the defendants before they present their case. A ruling on the motion is expected by the end of the month.