The Call to Execute Luigi Mangione Is Indefensible

OR it's going to prejudice the jury against him, like it usually does.

When capital punishment is on the table, only people who are in favor of it are selected for the jury, and people who are in favor of state murder are MUCH more likely to return a guilty verdict than people who aren't.

That's one of hundreds of reasons why civilized legal systems don't murder prisoners anymore.

I kind of agree, if I were in the jury, it would make me think twice about finding them guilty since I would feel like I have someone’s death on my hands.

Why does it feel like the trump administration would use Mangione's acquittal by jury as a reason to try to attack and do away with the 6th Amendment (trial by jury amendment)?

Yep, if you set the bar extraordinarily high, then you have to jump extraordinarily high. Bondi's likely doing more harm than good for her cause.

My worry is that trump is thinking of sending him to CECOT.

Well, we have a convicted felon and rapist as president already.

Californians would die of heart attack after eating all of them

Prove he killed someone.

It's very naive of people to think that in an authoritarian dictatorship controlled by the world's wealthiest people, that there won't be a LOT of unjust deaths in the coming years.

I will be positively shocked if they don't make a very public example of Mangione. It's going to hurt and that's what they want. They want to kill him in front of us so we feel pain. Then they're going to do it again and again with other people whom we don't want to see die. Remember that. This is what happens.

This is what 45% of eligible voters thought would never happen so they stayed home. Too much trouble. Too hard to figure out the truth (by googling for 30 seconds). Too many excuses to not rock the boat, and now the boat is rocking us all out.

That depends on whether or not jury nullification is in favor of billionaires....which it isn't. So it won't happen.

Not because they're a millionaire. Because they're a CEO whose policies directly resulted in unnecessary suffering and death.

if you have evidence you should send it to the court

https://youtu.be/RDUMTIsIXn0

Did he?

I'm completely serious, I have legitimate doubts about if Luigi is the adjuster. Everything about the arrest and (apparently illegally) collected evidence is extremely skechy.

After almost a week, the guy who escaped NYC cleanly (while leaving a backpack full of monopoly money in central park and signed bullet casings at the scene) is carrying around a signed confession and the murder weapon at McDonald's?

There's literally no other evidence than what they allegedly found on his person. The guy doesn't look that much like the person/people in the videos, the way they found him (an old man reporting to a cashier that a person with only their eyes visible looked like the shooter from the security cams) is sketchy as hell, and the evidence is straight up out of a police wet dream about the perfect arrest

This guy deserves a trial, like everyone does. The state apparently has no case against him at this point too

So why does every conversation start with assuming he did it?

The state killing its own citizens is never morally defensible.

It's even more egregious when political influence tries to exert pressure on the legal process in an effort to prejudice that verdict.

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.

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.

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.

He is absolutely likely to try it again, or perhaps worse, if released.

That would justify the life penalty (if proven), it exists for a reason.

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.

If the death penalty exists, and honestly I don't think it should, then it should apply fairly and treat all human life equally.

So all premeditated murder should be punished by death? What do you mean when you say all human life should be treated 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.

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.