In December, Luigi Mangione was arrested for shooting health insurance executive Brian Thompson. Last week, Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, announced that she was seeking the death penalty. It’s a highly unusual announcement, since Mangione hasn’t even been indicted yet on a federal level. (He has been indicted in Manhattan.) By intervening in this high-profile case, the Trump administration has made clear that it believes that CEOs are especially important people whose deaths need to be swiftly and mercilessly avenged.
I’ll defend it:
He traveled to murder a guy he never met before after stalking him online, carved words from a manifesto into bullet casings, engineered a 3D printable unregistered firearm, fled the scene of the crime with enough cash to live off of for years, and openly denies any wrongdoing by pleading innocent. He is absolutely likely to try it again, or perhaps worse, if released.
If the death penalty exists, and honestly I don’t think it should, then it should apply fairly and treat all human life equally.
He *allegedly" did those things. Part of the problem here, and with the death penalty generally, is the apparently general presumption of his guilt. He has not been to trial yet. Under US law, he is to have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty (as it is entirely possible, however unlikely it may be, that they have the wrong guy or that the charges do not reflect what actually happened), and so it is unreasonable by any measure for the federal AG to be stating that they’re pushing for the death penalty before he has even been federally charged.
Further, he didn’t plead “innocent”, as thats … not a thing? He pled “not guilty”, to the charges, which doesn’t intrinsically mean that he’s denying what actions were accused, but only that he believes the legal charges are not commensurate/congruent with whatever actions he did take (which, again, may or may not even include what he was accused of, cause it could be the wrong guy or an innacurate charge, hence why we have trials in the first place). E.g., someone who killed in self defense but was charged with murder would obviously plead not guilty even if they did in fact kill the person, because killing in self defense is not murder by any legal definition of either. Moreover, “openly denying any wrongdoing” would be entirely appropriate to do if he is in fact the wrong guy and he didn’t actually do anything.
Idgaf what hes guilty or innocent of, a fair trial means he doesn’t get to dodge the maximum sentence because of whiny fans.
He is currently innocent of all of those charges.
We don’t get to pick and choose when innocent before proven guilty gets applied. Openly stating that they’re seeking the death penalty before he’s even been indicted is weird and wrong.
Nobody is talking about taking him out back and shooting him. They’re discussing if the maximum punishment for the crime if and when found guilty should include death.
No, they’re not.
They’re not discussing what the appropriate penalties should be—which, by the way, is typically done at the end of a trial during the sentencing phase, after all evidence has been presented and a guilty verdict has been delivered, because punishment is supposed to be reflective of the evidence presented—they’re saying that they’ve already decided that the target penalty is death.
That’s a clear nod that they want to make an example, a concept divorced from justice.
Well this case absolutely looks like any other murder charge doesn’t it? And to touch on your other comment, it’s just as fair for everyone. The search for the suspect was like any other, the treatment with the media was like any other, and the federal government is holding back from intervening in a state case to poison the already tainted public before a jury can be formed just like any other case. Right?
Nothing has been proven, and there is no defense for how this person is being treated even IF he did do what is alleged. This country was founded on this principle.
Welcome to down votes, where you fail to see that they are being extra hard on him because he shot one of the surface dwellers. The difference is his alleged motivations which were to kill someone that has been actively engaging in spreading human misery for profit. In a practical sense, he allegedly killed a mass murderer that was for some reason never charged with a crime.
Oh boohoo the murderer is getting prosecuted thats so mean.
No, a man with the right to be innocent until proven guilty is being presumed guilty before due process can be done.
There is a difference
Bro idk who tf you think you’re arguing with or over what but it’s not me. He deserves a fair trial, and that means not dropping maximum sentences because some dweebs asked incessantly.
If you want to change the laws then change it for everyone, not just this fucking loser.
So all premeditated murder should be punished by death? What do you mean when you say all human life should be treated equally?
If any are persecuted with the death penalty as an option then it should apply equally and fairly.
You shouldn’t be able to dodge sentences because you are the tankei/anarchist-equivalent to Markiplier internet celebrity status.
That will run into some issues in the long run. If one is willing to carry out a death penalty, they themselves have now murdered and should be subjected to the same fate. If not, then anyone who has murdered a murderer, should be given the rights the executioners get, to avoid those penalties. No issue is cut and dry or black and white. And absolutely, we should be well past death penalties.
Well then that’s easy, just use firing squads and then you won’t know who killed him.
No, anyone who is willing to kill another human, signs up to do so, and is part of a mob who does, is in the same boat.
Eh, that just leads back into only bad people can kill which is just bad people winning again. Ultimately we need good people who are willing to do bad things. Though ideally there just shouldn’t be execution.
We shouldn’t. And if we were to make it “fair”, anyone who is willing to participate in that kind of punishment would then be brought to justice under the same rule of law. So if one is willing to be an executioner, they to shall be executed. So the baddies would get their justice in the end too.
Then, we’d eventually either run out of peeps, or at least the “death is the answer” ones.
Womp Womp guess you’ll have to write a letter about it.
Removed by mod
Listen, you argued that the death sentence shouldn’t exist or that every executioner should be given trial.
Before that, I argued that the death sentence shouldn’t exist or that celebrities shouldn’t be able to escape charges.
If anything, I think you’re the one who needs to sober up, kid.
I remember back in the day in history class we’d discuss if murdering a tyrant is morally wrong and how it should be treated by the law. The class pretty much agreed if you 360 quick tomahawk someone who causes millions of deaths it’s fair game.
I’m so ashamed of myself for failing the litmus test created by a bunch of 15 year olds. /s
I mean, sure he went through a lot of effort, but I don’t think we should hold that against him.
After all, US soldiers goes through a lot of effort to kill people they’ve never met before.
All that effort is literally the criteria for murder in the third degree. It’s a worse crime than a crime of passion or negligence.
In what world does someone on the run carry a fuck load of cash, versus stashing it at a destination? Also you need to read the police reports, they fucked up big time, they had to search his backpack 3 fucking times before finding the supposed murder weapon, a back pack, 3 times. Think about that. Oh yeah and the third time was out of site of all the body and stores cameras.
That would justify the life penalty (if proven), it exists for a reason.
Nothing justifies the death penalty, really.
True, it’s barbarism, plain and simple.
There is nothing fair about applying the death penalty for a man acting in defence of his country. That shit should be reserved for school shooters or republicans.
Just for the sake of argument. You say that because he killed and probably will kill again, death penalty is justifiable . By the same line of reasoning this should be valid as well for the judge, the attorney and every other person responsible for the final execution. You could even make the argument for the victim, as he killed people by actively rejecting proper medical care in multiple cases.
The judge and the enforcers are empowered by the State. The attorney is empowered by the Bar Association. The jury is a collection of Luigi’s peers to provide unanimous judgement.
This is not Luigi vs a room full of random people. This is Luigi vs The United States of America and Luigi vs New York State. We all collectively participated in the system that wrote these laws and how to enforce them, or at least I hope we do.
If you don’t like how it works? Good, go pursue political action unlike Luigi.
“Worse”
It most of that is them saying it. And they lie all the time. I don’t believe much of it, and I think I need more untampered evidence showing it was him. I’m rooting for the innocent scapegoat.