Why is Luigi Mangione potentially facing the death penalty for the murder of one person when other murderers with similar crimes get jain time?

[u/Glittery_WarlockWho]

Please no snarky comments of 'you know why' , 'it's because the guy was rich' etc... There HAS to be a reason why his crime is getting sentenced so heavily that doesn't have to do with the net worth of his victim, or at least I hope there is.

In my city, a drunk driver kills two people in a car and he's sentenced to jail for 20 years and gets out in 12 for good behaviour.

Luigi kills one man and is facing the death penalty?

I don't understand, he didn't kidnap, rape or torture, I've heard of murderers who rape and murder their victims get sentenced to jail.

[u/jurassicbond]

Not every jurisdiction has the death penalty and many of those people who do worse may have also potentially faced the death penalty but were able to plead down to lesser charges. The same can happen to Mangione.

[u/kelmscottch → u/jurassicbond]

He's facing federal charges which is why the death penalty is coming into play here..... Various states have banned the death penalty (including ny state), but at the federal level it is no longer banned.

[u/NoTeslaForMe → u/kelmscottch]

Also, OP is conflating what one person faces with what others get.  Most people for whom the death penalty is on the table at the start of the process don't actually get it in sentencing.

[u/hanks_panky_emporium → u/NoTeslaForMe]

Death Penalty from a jury is pretty hard to get in modern times besides. The court is asking a jury of normal people to have someones death on their hands, and every single one of them has to sign off on killing someone.

Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it's not. We still have folks who were executed by the state who were later proven innocent. Imagine killing an innocent person and trying to live with yourself.

[u/NicolleL → u/hanks_panky_emporium]

Amazingly, it actually does not need a unanimous decision in a few places. Alabama only needs 10/12 and Florida recently reduced it to 8/12.

Edit: Someone mentioned Ramos v Louisiana (2020 decision that Sixth Amendment requirement of unanimous jury in guilty verdict applied to state courts as well). This applies for the actual guilty verdict; it is just the penalty phase that does not need to be unanimous for these states.

[u/returnofblank → u/NicolleL]

How is Juror #8 supposed to save them now?

[u/spoilerdudegetrekt → u/returnofblank]

You still need all 12 to convict.

The reason Florida changed it for sentencing is because 1 or 2 jurors spared the Parkland shooter from the death penalty.

[u/TheSeansei → u/spoilerdudegetrekt]

It doesn't get more Florida than making it easier for the state to murder people.

[u/usernameforthemasses → u/TheSeansei]

It doesn't get more Florida than making it easier for the state to murder people by moving their own goalposts.

[u/reddit_killed_apollo → u/usernameforthemasses]

I, as a mass, have appreciated your username

[u/goodcleanchristianfu → u/spoilerdudegetrekt]

According to the jury foreman it was 3 opposed.

[u/romulusnr → u/spoilerdudegetrekt]

Yeah it sucks when the judicial system of peers isn't rigged towards what the state wants

[u/No_Kangaroo_9826 → u/NicolleL]

Once again I find myself saying holy shit Florida

[u/fixermark → u/hanks_panky_emporium]

In fact, traditionally, pushing too hard on the death penalty is how you wind up with a nullification, or a hung jury.

All it takes is one juror to decide "I will never find a person guilty if that finding could authorize the state to end their life," and there you go.

(This is, historically, one of the actual reasons that penalties for theft were lessened in England. Folks in London were looking at kids in the docket and knew that the penalty for theft could be death. So... They didn't convict. London merchants got terrified that the law would practically stop protecting their property and petitioned the king to lower the possible penalties).

[u/MonCappy → u/hanks_panky_emporium]

I believe some crimes are deserving of death. I don't believe any government should have the power to execute its citizens when the justice system is innately imperfect.

[u/Knight_Machiavelli → u/MonCappy]

I mostly agree. I'd only leave out the last part of the last sentence. I don't think the state should have the power to execute its citizens even if the system were perfect and even if the crime deserves death. It's too much power to give the state.

[u/MonCappy → u/Knight_Machiavelli]

I think that is a fair position to have. In any case we will never have perfect systems, so for all practical purposes, the point is moot.

[u/J0hn-Stuart-Mill → u/MonCappy]

It's too much power to give the state.

I think that is a fair position to have. In any case we will never have perfect systems

Even if we had some sort of perfect justice system, the government is too prone to corruption and incompetence to trust it to do anything as important as executions.

Alan Gell was already IN PRISON (for something else) on the day a man was murdered, that Gell was later convicted of killing.

He sat on North Carolina's death row for YEARS despite prosecutors having direct proof that he was innocent. He was eventually awarded $3.9M for the crimes committed against him by the Bertie County North Carolina government "justice" system.

• https://davidsrudolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Gell-vs-Ransome-2009.pdf
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Gell

[u/goodcleanchristianfu → u/Knight_Machiavelli]

It's also not any kind of tremendous failure to not kill people even though they deserve it. Deservedness should be a cap on punishment, utilitarian concerns should decide the floor.

[u/usernameforthemasses → u/Knight_Machiavelli]

Exactly. I, too, agree that some crimes are deserving of death. But I don't believe there is anyone, state or otherwise, who should be empowered to carry out the sentence.

[u/AsSubtleAsABrick → u/hanks_panky_emporium]

Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it's not. We still have folks who were executed by the state who were later proven innocent. Imagine killing an innocent person and trying to live with yourself.

"Worth it." - Anyone who supports the death penalty.

[u/nicholas818 → u/AsSubtleAsABrick]

I think they’re talking about it from the perspective of a juror. It’s one thing to support capital punishment in the abstract and another to vote to kill someone, have their execution occur, and later find out that you were wrong. It’s not hard to see why someone in that case would feel personally responsible for killing an innocent person.

[u/AwareAge1062 → u/nicholas818]

Seems like a pretty good argument to just not consider the death penalty at all

[u/Forsaken_Whole3093 → u/hanks_panky_emporium]

I think they’ll execute him. Somehow someway.

[u/LewisRyan → u/Forsaken_Whole3093]

If he doesn’t get the death penalty he’ll “commit suicide” in jail.

Send a message not to kill the elite

[u/Tomi97_origin → u/Forsaken_Whole3093]

Killing him risks making him into a martyr.

Much easier to have him rot in some dark cell for the rest of his life while people outside forget he ever lived.

[u/gsfgf → u/NoTeslaForMe]

And DUI manslaughter from OP's example isn't a death penalty crime anywhere. It has to be premeditated, which Luigi was.

[u/confusedandworried76 → u/gsfgf]

That's what I think don't people get. If you can prove he did it, that's still first degree murder and also potential terrorism, as political violence is by definition terrorism. If it's proven he did it and and the prosecution successfully argued that killing a healthcare CEO is a political act he is by definition a terrorist

[u/texanfan20 → u/kelmscottch]

Also the death penalty is only considered if the murder was premeditated or planned. Many murders are not but either argued to be crime of passion, as part of another act of crime or temporary insanity.

[u/theevilyouknow → u/texanfan20]

as part of another act of crime

This is called felony murder, and you can face the death penalty for it even in cases where you might not otherwise. For example if you rob a bank and end up killing someone you can get the death penalty even though you might not have been planning to kill anyone or even intended to kill anyone on the basis of that killing being felony murder because it took place during the commission of a felony.

[u/Zarktheshark1818 → u/kelmscottch]

Exactly. I do think they will treat Mangione stricter and different than just a "normal murderer" to send a message but you are exactly right. Even if it was a "normal" murder, at the point in trial that it is now I imagine the prosecutor (assuming it's not outlawed in that state) would still be waving the death penalty around trying to get them to plead down.

[u/gsfgf → u/Zarktheshark1818]

Depends on the jurisdiction. At least in blue jurisdictions, it's rare to death notice anyone. Not to mention that if you actually have to try a death penalty case, it's a nightmare. A death penalty case is a massive drain on resources, and the death penalty doesn't even accomplish anything in terms of deterrence or whatever. You could put ten rapists away for decades in the time it takes to execute one person.

[u/RainbowCrane → u/kelmscottch]

Also, just an fyi for folks who weren’t alive in the 1970s or 80s, from 1972 to 1988 the federal death penalty was banned - Congress passed a law in 1988 reinstating it. And no one was executed from 1972 to 2001.

It’s still pretty rare to be executed under the federal death penalty. After the executions in the early 2000s no one was executed until Trump’s first administration, when 13 were executed. Biden commuted the sentences of everyone not convicted of terrorism on his way out of office so there are only 3 folks remaining on federal death row.

TLDR, it’s really rare to be executed under the federal death penalty. States like Texas, on the other hand, regularly execute folks who are sentenced to death.

[u/Webcat86 → u/RainbowCrane]

On the other hand it sounds like Luigi has the exact worse president for it

[u/anomander_galt → u/kelmscottch]

Sorry dumb question, why is this a Federal Crime? Shouldn't be a NY State crime?

[u/Legio-X → u/anomander_galt]

Sorry dumb question, why is this a Federal Crime? Shouldn't be a NY State crime?

Because he crossed state lines to commit the murder and used a silencer, both of which are federal charges.

ETA: From the DoJ press release back in December…

MANGIONE, 26, of Towson, Maryland, is charged with one count of using a firearm to commit murder, which carries a maximum potential sentence of death or life in prison; one count of interstate stalking resulting in death, which carries a maximum potential sentence of life in prison; one count of stalking through use of interstate facilities resulting in death, which carries a maximum potential sentence of life in prison; and one count of discharging a firearm that was equipped with a silencer in furtherance of a crime of violence, which carries a maximum potential sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/luigi-mangione-charged-stalking-and-murder-unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-and-use

[u/Meanee → u/Legio-X]

One of my childhood friends became NY cop. And during a traffic stop, was gunned down. They found the shooter in PA. NY doesn’t have death penalty so the state asked feds to prosecute so the shooter will get capital punishment.

Feds refused.

But when it comes to avenging a rich white guy, sure, let’s take the case.

I hate this timeline.

At least I have hope that no jury will convict him

[u/Plow_King → u/Legio-X]

i didn't know a silencer was a federal prohibition. i think they're legal in MO, which kind of surprised me to be honest. and i live here, lol. but i found the idea of wanting to purchase one pretty unsettling.

[u/Legio-X → u/Plow_King]

i didn't know a silencer was a federal prohibition.

They’re legal to own, federally, but regulated under the NFA, and federal law comes down hard on any use of them in violent crime.

[u/kibufox → u/Legio-X]

As a rule, you need to fill out ATF Form 4 to own one.

This is Form 4.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-tax-paid-transfer-and-registration-firearm-atf-form-53204

The exception to this is if the buyer is an FFL (Federal Firearms License) holder. If a person is a FFL holder, then they don't need to fill out Form 4 to purchase, own, or use a silencer in any non violent (IE criminal) endeavor or use.

[u/jacks-injured-liver → u/kibufox]

Providing the FFL holder has paid the SOT. Either class 3 for dealers or class 2 for manufacturers.

[u/ino4x4 → u/Legio-X]

Also, allegedly he made it himself

[u/NukaTwistnGout → u/ino4x4]

If you make it yourself you need a form 1. Still legal with the proper paper work

[u/Recent-Guitar-6837 → u/Plow_King]

I own several and it's really not like the movies. You still have a report from firing it just keeps the hi sonic notes out of your hearing. I have a Finnish Tikka 7mm hunting rifle with a threaded barrel. The decibel drop is like 180 to 110. European hunters often use suppressors just to decrease the ambient noise. I used to dispatch wounded or car struck animals with a suppressor equipped rifle when I moonlighted as a parks and recreation constable.

Many years ago a tractor trailer clipped a whitetail deer backside and the deer stumbled into the backyards of a tract of homes. The children were inconsolable they could see, plan as the day that animal was suffering. Both rear legs shattered and the pelvic girdle to the spine was snapped. Blood and fecal matter was everywhere. I dispatched the animal by slowly stalking up and getting him toward a fenced area. I used a 22 magnum with a suppressor after we issued a shelter in place order. It wasn't fun but mercifully a little snap and Bambi stopped moving. I was able to then cover the animal with a tarp to get time and man power to remove the deer. I couldn't imagine the chaos discharging my service sidearm would have caused.

Suppressors have a purpose and fit a role. It's really just a tool in the box. I don't say silencer as it's woah fully inaccurate. I'm not trying to sway your stance but I just want to make you aware of the actual application. Information is never a bad thing in a respectful conversation. Proarmory.com has a lot of technical information.

[u/talondarkx → u/Recent-Guitar-6837]

You mean I can’t shoot at John Wick in a crowd repeatedly and have nobody notice?

[u/ilkhan2016 → u/talondarkx]

God that scene is stupid.

[u/Recent-Guitar-6837 → u/talondarkx]

110 decibel is still pretty loud. I don't watch movies much but Yea you can't fire in a crowd unnoticed. As a point of reference my echo gas weed wacker is 112 decibels so you might be better off throwing the weed Wacker.

[u/Skipp_To_My_Lou → u/Recent-Guitar-6837]

For reference, OSHA sets the time-weighted limit at 90db over an 8 hour workday, with a requirement that at 85db employers enact a hearing conservation plan (install sound baffles, require PPE, etc); & an absolute limit of 140db. At 80db, at normal conversational distances, you'd have to shout to be heard. 110db is like front row at a loud rock concert or standing right in front of a fire engine with the siren going full blast.

180 db is potentially "I cannot hear anything because my eardrums ruptured".

[u/gsfgf → u/Skipp_To_My_Lou]

an absolute limit of 140db

Which is roughly the sound of a gunshot. Hence why people like suppressors.

[u/Ditnoka → u/anomander_galt]

Something to do with him traveling from out of state. There's a couple other charges that allow the Feds to step in as well.

[u/AshleyMyers44 → u/anomander_galt]

Basically if federal prosecutors want the case they can get it.

There’s a thing called a federal nexus in which the fed basically has to show almost anything where the case intersects with federal law and they can grab the case.

The Luigi case was easy. He crossed state lines to commit the crime and to evade the crime. He had modifications to his firearm that were against federal law. They’re also claiming his motivation in the crime fits the federal terrorism statute.

If the feds really want a murder they can find a federal nexus almost anywhere.

[u/ReasonableCup604 → u/AshleyMyers44]

The Feds can't make ANY case Federal. But, this case had circumstances that made it possible.

[u/00Oo0o0OooO0 → u/anomander_galt]

It's being charged by the federal government specifically because they want to use the death penalty. The current rules only allow the federal government to dual prosecute if there's a federal interest. Normally that means the victims were federal employees or something. In this case, the federal interest cited is a Trump EO that we should be doing more capital punishment.

[u/Time-Painting-9108 → u/00Oo0o0OooO0]

Exactly. It’s very political. Bondi even called for his head before he was federally indicted in her debut Instagram post. This is of course unconstitutional (bc it taints the grand jury pool) and his lawyers are fighting to preclude the death penalty. 

[u/1acedude → u/jurassicbond]

This is partially correct but the real answer to OP’s question is simply the prosecutors chose to pursue it in this case and other prosecutors chose not to in other cases.

There’s lot of considerations in that decision, chief among them? Whether the prosecution thinks they can successfully secure a death sentence. Pursuing DP increases constitutional protections. the requirement of individual jurors increases, they must now be death qualified jurors.

In total it creates a lot more work for everyone involved to seek DP, and prosecutors have to decide if it’s worth it in each individual case.

Source: criminal defense attorney

[u/Frequent-Account-344 → u/1acedude]

The OP compared Mangione's crime to a Drunk Driver committing vehicular homicide. Mangione's crime was meticulously planned, pre-mediated murder.

[u/TheGreatSzalam → u/Frequent-Account-344]

Allegedly

[u/RaisonDetritus → u/1acedude]

What do you mean by "death qualified jurors"? Does that mean they have to find jurors who have no ideological qualms with convicting someone for a crime where the death penalty is a possible sentence? I would imagine that would be problematic for the prosecution if they are stuck with a juror who would never vote to convict in a capital murder case. What kind of vetting do jurors have to go through for the court to be confident they are being truthful? What happens if the juror makes it to the trial and it's found out they were not telling the truth about their willingness to convict in a capital murder case?

[u/1acedude → u/RaisonDetritus]

Yeah so the big thing for death qualified is you’re removing jurors categorically opposed or in favor of DP. Because DP is legal it’s considered as the juror not being willing to follow the law. Because DP is not required, categorically in favor is also considered unwilling to follow the law.

Generally there’s preliminary questionnaires asking jurors positions. But the real work comes in voir dire (the question answer pick jury portion). Jurors may pass preliminary questions but you poke and prod their beliefs and you and they realize together that juror actually does have extreme beliefs.

In truth after voir dire, if a juror makes it onto the panel, there isn’t any check or balance. That portions over. There are no extremely rare example of jurors lying. Sometimes it’s a mistrial, other times it’s removing them and using one of the alternate jurors that were picked

[u/TheAlaskaneagle → u/jurassicbond]

The Obvious answer here is to elect Luigi Mangione as president in 2028.

[u/Dilettante]

Murder can carry the death penalty, depending on the state and level. This isn't unusual in that respect.

It's a bit unusual in that New York isn't one of those states, but federal charges do carry the death sentence.

[u/Glittery_WarlockWho → u/Dilettante]

why is this crime considered federal?

[u/sexrockandroll → u/Glittery_WarlockWho]

I believe it's because he crossed state lines while on the run.

[u/programmerOfYeet → u/sexrockandroll]

It's because he crossed state lines to stalk and kill him, him running to another state wouldn't make it federal

[u/Dry_Specialist2673 → u/programmerOfYeet]

no he didnt. hes been with me down in florida for years /s

[u/ItsSpaghettiLee2112 → u/Dry_Specialist2673]

For folks unaware, that /s is because he was actually with me.

[u/ncc74656m → u/ItsSpaghettiLee2112]

Thanks guys, but you don't need to take the heat here. He was with me, all night long, and honestly, it feels great to admit it in the light of day. He's so handsome, and such a generous and caring lover.

[u/ItsSpaghettiLee2112 → u/ncc74656m]

If you turn this into a meme the cops aren't going to believe me.

[u/Epao_Mirimiri → u/ItsSpaghettiLee2112]

Can confirm. They still don't believe that I am Spartacus. 🙁

[u/Snoo63 → u/Epao_Mirimiri]

Because I am Spartacus!

[u/Various_Froyo9860 → u/programmerOfYeet]

Also, terrorism as the act was a political statement.

[u/BobDylan1904 → u/Glittery_WarlockWho]

because his crime involved multiple states, including interstate stalking, plus he used a silencer

[u/jUsT-As-G0oD → u/Glittery_WarlockWho]

As one other person stated it’s because he used a suppressor on his gun in addition to crossing state lines to commit the crime. Suppressors are highly federally regulated

[u/Mammoth-Mud-9609]

The issue of death penalty only comes up in cases of premeditated murder, where the murder was deliberate and planned in advance.

[u/GeekAesthete → u/Mammoth-Mud-9609]

More specifically, regarding OP's comparison: a drunk-driving accident would be vehicular manslaughter, while planning and carrying out an execution is first-degree murder (and in this case, they added terrorism charges on top of that). Sure, they both result in someone dead, but they are treated as very different crimes.

[u/nemec → u/[deleted]]

idk, I think your chances of getting away with it are pretty low once the cops see you've scrawled "let's kill some CEOs" on the side of your van

[u/gsfgf → u/GeekAesthete]

vehicular manslaughter

To be a little pedantic, DUI manslaughter and other forms of vehicular manslaughter often have very different penalties. Like, they can still charge you for accidentally running someone over or something (depending on circumstances), but you're not looking at decades unless you were drunk, reckless, in a police chase, etc.

[u/MagicGrit → u/Mammoth-Mud-9609]

Premeditated does not necessarily mean “planned in advance.”

It means that the perpetrator knows what they are doing, and has enough time to stop and think that what they are doing is purposefully killing another person. It doesn’t mean they sat at home and drew up plans to do it.

[u/Mayor__Defacto → u/MagicGrit]

Although in this case they’re alleging that he did in fact plan it out.

[u/MagicGrit → u/Mayor__Defacto]

Sure, but that’s not what makes it first degree. Which is what the commenter I replied to said

[u/kytheon → u/MagicGrit]

Fair. So it means planned always results in premeditated, but premeditated wasn't always planned.

In other words, it's really hard to deny premeditation if you planned out the hit. It's hard to prove intent, but easy to prove planning.

[u/BumblebeeOfCarnage → u/kytheon]

You can premeditate for 10 seconds

[u/whiskeytango55 → u/MagicGrit]

Isnt that malice of forethought?

[u/winsluc12 → u/whiskeytango55]

*Aforethought

[u/MagicGrit → u/whiskeytango55]

Malice aforethough has to do with intent I believe. Premeditation is moreso about having the time to realize what you’re doing. The alternative is if you’re in a fight and your opponent is killed during the fight. Or you’re just in a blind rage and act without thinking or realizing what’s happening (I think. I’m not a lawyer).

[u/flatgreyrust → u/Mammoth-Mud-9609]

That’s not true. There are multiple other reasons people are given death sentences. Killing an LEO or a child, killing after already receiving a murder conviction (like in prison), or espionage (hasn’t happened since the 50’s but still) to name a few.

[u/ReasonableCup604 → u/Mammoth-Mud-9609]

Most States and the Federal government require aggravating circumstances that outweigh any mitigating circumstances for a DP case.

[u/Time-Painting-9108 → u/Mammoth-Mud-9609]

Premeditated murder is not enough for the death penalty. Usually the death penalty is reserved for the “worst of the worst” and murder has to be particularly heinous and meet a legal standard of a few aggravating factors.

This is political bc of a Bondi (she stated it herself). In her debut Instagram post, she said this is part of Trump’s new plan to Make American Safe Again. 

Apparently even the local prosecutors were not going to pursue the death penalty until Bondi got involved. Bondi’s involvement from the beginning in this federal case is actually unconstitutional and Luigi’s lawyers are fighting to get the DP dismissed. 

[u/LivingGhost371 → u/Time-Painting-9108]

New York not having the death penalty is probably a factor in why the local prosecutor didn't pursue it.

[u/DocPsychosis → u/LivingGhost371]

The writing is vague but they may have meant the US Attorney for the Southern District of NY which would still be federal, just not DC DOJ administration official-level federal.

[u/rctid_taco → u/Time-Painting-9108]

One of the aggravating factors in the federal statute is:

(9)Substantial planning and premeditation.— The defendant committed the offense after substantial planning and premeditation to cause the death of a person or commit an act of terrorism.

[u/Mayor__Defacto → u/Time-Painting-9108]

New York does not have the death penalty.

[u/tupe12]

There’a a couple more things to this then just a random kill, the currently known evidence shows that it was politically motivated (which falls into assasination / terrorism / similar terms), and to some degree was pre-planned (at least if the bullet casings are anything to go by). Doesn’t matter where you stand on it morally, this is considered more severe then your average drunk driver as far as the law is concerned.

I think it is worth mentioning however that officially, Luigi is still considered innocent by law. And it could very well be that the real perpetrator has gotten away with it due to how much focus has been put on the current primary suspect.

[u/deathrictus → u/tupe12]

Didn't forget that certain very rich people want the book thrown at him as hard as possible as a deterrent. People both at the top of the government and people outside the government with government representatives bought and paid for.

[u/Teekno]

In my city, a drunk driver kills two people in a car and he's sentenced to jail for 20 years and gets out in 12 for good behaviour.

That is not murder, so it can't get the death penalty.

Luigi kills one man and is facing the death penalty?

That is murder, so, in specific jurisdictions, that can result in the death penalty.

[u/notbadhbu → u/Teekno]

What about conspiring to remove people from lifesaving medical coverage?

[u/DeltaVZerda → u/notbadhbu]

Punishable by Luigi

[u/Teekno → u/notbadhbu]

Would be nice if that was actually a crime.

[u/DirectionCapital4470 → u/Teekno]

He picked a target to instill terror in society through murder. This is why they are seeking such a strong penalty.

[u/Sesame_Street_Urchin → u/DirectionCapital4470]

Yes, exactly. They are charging him with terrorism.

The generally accepted definition of terrorism is “politically motivated violence” - which seems like exactly what Luigi was going for based on his manifesto

[u/Fit_Football_6533]

You're comparing a crime of negligence to a crime of premeditation. That's why

[u/Recent-Guitar-6837]

Federal statutes allow for the death penalty because he planned and followed through. It wasn't spontaneous and it wasn't negligent.

[u/DeathByFright]

They want to shut down the notion that shooting a CEO is heroic.

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, he became a folk hero, which created genuine fear that the investor/CEO class was at risk of copycats, so they're going to be as harsh as possible to him to discourage copycats.

It's a gamble. Death penalty cases are at a disadvantage because a lot of jurors are less okay with the idea of killing someone, and the folk-hero status is going to make jury selection VERY difficult to begin with.

And even if they get the verdict and sentence they want, they're going to have to deal with the fact that they'll be martyring him.

[u/schlamster → u/DeathByFright]

See also:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik

[u/trentos1 → u/DeathByFright]

I was under the impression they ask jurors about their stance on the death penalty during selection. If a juror indicates they won’t convict someone if it means they’ll die, they remove them

[u/nytewing0 → u/trentos1]

This is well known enough that a decent amount of people know to lie about it.

[u/FistofK0nshu → u/DeathByFright]

This is the only correct answer in my opinion. Why would they give him anything less?

It’s setting an example; to remind us to stay in line and not act out.

[u/itchylol742 → u/FistofK0nshu]

Death never deterred killers and it certainly won't now. People who kill are prepared to be killed themselves

[u/Away_Doctor2733]

A lot of murderers get charged with the death penalty initially to try and pressure for a plea agreement where the death penalty is taken off the table. 

The amount of death penalty possible cases that actually get to the sentencing stage with the death penalty still on the table is quite low. 

[u/Various-Walk-2584 → u/Away_Doctor2733]

This is the boring but correct answer.

[u/Texas43647]

They are making an example out of him

[u/northhiker1 → u/Texas43647]

It really is that simple. OP can hope as much as they want that this isn't due to the fact that the victim was rich but it is, plain and simple

[u/Texas43647 → u/northhiker1]

That’s exactly what it is. They are proving a point. You are poor and kill the rich, this is what will happen. It’s really that simple.

[u/GreenTfan → u/Texas43647]

The irony is Mangione isn't poor, he is from a wealthy Italian immigrant family in suburban Baltimore. Amongst other things, family members own a portfolio of various properties, two country clubs, a nursing home chain and a radio station. They also have a family foundation doing a lot of philanthropy.

[u/Pasta4ever13 → u/GreenTfan]

The Mangione family is estimated to have a net worth of tens of millions of dollars and that's the entire family.

That's almost nothing to a billionaire.

Sure they are wealthy, but when we talk about capital, it's entirely different.

[u/jgzman → u/Texas43647]

The rich cannot win a war of attrition.

[u/[deleted]]

Premeditated is the key here. Then there is the running and hiding.

[u/Realtrain → u/[deleted]]

Premeditated is the key here.

It's not though. Federal death penalty can apply to murders that aren't premeditated.

Federal is actually the key word here. Some jurisdictions (including NY) don't have the death penalty. The federal government does.

[u/noisewar69]

i love the concept of you saying you don’t want anyone telling you the actual answer, you want a better one.

[u/gpost86 → u/noisewar69]

Exactly, the question isn't whether he should or should not be charged with a crime, it's the circus and propaganda that the charge creates. If he crossed state lines and killed someone he knew that was a "nobody" they wouldn't charge him with terrorism and want to execute him.

[u/Jawyp → u/gpost86]

Well yea, the reason why he’s being charged with terrorism is because he made a political statement by murdering a high-profile business figure.

If he murdered some random dude he hated back in high school or whatever, that definitionally wouldn’t be terrorism.

[u/PaxNova → u/gpost86]

If it was a nobody, it wouldn't have been terrorism. That's absolutely correct. It's only terrorism because it's against a role rather than a person. Anybody who was CEO would have been valid for him, in an attempt to coerce people not to support said role. That's political violence. 

If it was the murder of a random nobody for no reason and no political aim, it wouldn't be terrorism by definition. It's just murder.

[u/VelVeetaLasVegas]

Got to make an example of what happens when you go after higher status people.

[u/dsp_guy]

Premeditated is the key.

[u/MayerMTB]

Are you asking why the world isn't fair? Because it's not. Simple answer.

[u/Anomalous-Materials8]

Federal. His motive. His intent.

[u/shponglespore]

Sorry, I can't answer because you've already said you don't want to get the real answer.

[u/[deleted]]

You don't understand the difference between planning to murder someone and accidentally killing someone because you drive drunk?

[u/yourcousinfromboston]

Just because he is facing the death penalty doesnt mean he’ll get it.

[u/Lucky_Musician_]

Jain are very peaceful

[u/Res_Novae17]

He crossed state lines with intent to murder, which made it a federal case. The federal prosecutors have the option to seek the death penalty on the basis that it was aggravated by his motive being meant to intimidate other people with influence into making certain policy changes, which is arguably a form of terrorism.

[u/DiogenesKuon]

A lot of states don't have the death penalty, so for many murders that isn't an option, and is usually reserved for not just murder, but cold blooded murder often with special circumstances. So a drunk driver killing multiple people would likely never be given the death penalty. In Mangione's case he's accused of a targeted assassination for political reasons via a highly planned cold blooded killing. That's the kind of thing that could easily have the death penalty applied to it, especially as an incentive to force a plea deal so that the person doesn't get off because of some mistake in the case. So it's not particularly unusual for a situation like this to warrant a death penalty.

[u/FactCheckerJack → u/DiogenesKuon]

A lot of states don't have the death penalty

Including New York

[u/SebastianPointdexter]

When you put in effort to plan and murder someone the death penalty usually is on the table if the jurisdiction you're in has one.

[u/Standard-Patient5566]

"There HAS to be a reason why his crime is getting sentenced so heavily that doesn't have to do with the net worth of his victim"

There isn't.

[u/sexrockandroll]

He is facing federal charges, where the death penalty can be used. I believe the reason the jurisdiction is federal is that he crossed state lines while on the run. Many states don't use the death penalty for any state charges, even multiple murders.

[u/programmerOfYeet → u/sexrockandroll]

It's federal because he crossed state lines to commit the murder in the first place, fleeing across state lines is irrelevant in this situation

[u/OrizaRayne]

Why does there have to be more? Some lives are worth more than others to the state and some incidents worth propagandizing.

They hit him with federal terrorism charges for crossing state lines and hitting a public figure while having a manifesto.

They chose those charges for their reasons because there are always reasons.

[u/blindgallan]

He is being made an example of.

[u/gashndash → u/blindgallan]

Because he single handedly wiped $250B off UNH’s stock for exposing the fraud

[u/diefreetimedie → u/gashndash]

This right here. It's not for Brian Thompson, it's for the capital.

[u/DiggerJer]

Because the american judicial system is a circus!

[u/okbuggeroff]

I think it has to do with the premeditation and planning of an assassination of a stranger. It's very calculating.

Accidents and heat of the moment types of killings get more sympathy.

[u/NorthernUnIt]

They want to set an exemple so no one else will try again to kill a ceo.

Just see the panic attack that occurred after 'Luigi', all insurance Ceo's put all their social!l as private and hired private security.

[u/WarOnIce]

Why’s he facing life when Gisell Maxwell is going on a work release after raping kids and helping traffic them?

[u/LukePieStalker42]

Because we live in a society that is based on classes regardless of if we want to admit it or not. Luigi (low class) killed a CEO (high class) and that can't be allowed. This point is best illustrated in the 1998 film "a bugs life".

"You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up! Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It's not about food, it's about keeping those ants in line."

[u/musicteachertay]

Because they’re making an example of him

[u/ladyrose403]

I'm sorry, but to a large extent, that's exactly what it is. His victim was rich. The Manson Family was orginally sentanced to death, then commuted to life. When they were finally eligble for parole, it was consistently denied. Not due to whether or not they have been rehabilitated or not, but flat out because almost all of their victims were rich and famous. Plenty of other murderous cultists were given life sentances for murder, and barely served 20 years.

[u/SoftConsideration82]

To make an example...

[u/Mobe-E-Duck]

1. Jurisdiction and 2. He's on video committing clear, premeditated murder. He found the guy he was targeting, walked up behind him, disabled him with gunshots and then shot him in the front. There is no doubt he meant to do it, no doubt he meant to get the guy he did.

Whether or not you think his crime was justified or his victim was evil - he committed intentional, premeditated 1st degree murder. And that's why he is (in my guess) going to be put to death.

The real question is, "Why do people who make policies that kill millions not get the death penalty," and the answer to that is a snarky, "You know why."

[u/misterroberto1]

Why ask the question if you don’t want the real answer? The victim was a rich white man plus Trump wants to make an example being tough on crime. We have a tiered justice system in the US. How you are treated depends on your wealth, race and how the politics of it will play. And that is true of the victim and the accused.

[u/Efficient-Cap8111]

It always depends on the state and jurisdiction, whether he is being prosecuted by state or federal authorities - and premeditation makes a huge difference. This murder, regardless of anything else, was meticulously planned.

Although the results are the same, a drunk driver didn't plan to kill anyone. Someone died because of his thoughtlessness and selfishness - but while he intended to drink and then drove without regard to the safety of others, he didn't do it with the intent of taking a human life.

A person who drinks and drives doesn't need to be stopped from killing. They need to be stopped from drinking and then driving. And punished for how their actions affected the world around them. But that person is not inherently evil. He can be rehabilitated and eventually re-enter society without being a danger to anyone. And since he wasn't actually morally evil, likely was tortured by the lives he took.

The law sort of makes excuses for people who don't intend to kill but end up killing. Heat of passion crimes are also intentionally treated differently than a planned murder. The idea is that a person who was provoked has less time for their rational mind to kick in and stop them. The classic example is a man who walks in on his wife and another man. The man immediately takes out his gun and shoots both. It's a double homicide - but because it was done in the heat of the moment, the prosecutor would likely charge murder 2 - murder without premeditation. The man had no time to cool off and think through his actions.

Now if that same man didn't have a gun on his person, but instead had his guns in a gun safe - and had to walk down the hall, unlock the gun safe, load the gun walk back down the hall and then shoot his wife and the other man, he might be charged with murder 1- because now he had time for his rational mind to kick in...and decided to murder anyway.

A drunk driver would more likely be charged with vehicular manslaughter. - homicide without the object of intent.

But someone who plans a murder - whatever the provocation - had time for his rational mind and morality to kick in. To understand that what he was doing, taking a human life, regardless of how morally reprehensible that human was, was morally and legally wrong, and instead of just not murdering, instead both came up with a plan to murder, but also to avoid the consequences - showing his consciousness of guilt. He didn't just plan a murder. He planned to get away with murder.

Under the law, someone who intends to commit a cold blooded murder is considered the most reprehensible and in the need of punishment, the society needs protection and the crime needs to be deterred.

i personally see the death penalty as morally reprehensible as cold blooded murder. But I understand why it exists.

[u/TimeTravelParadoctor]

You do know the reason though

[u/Far-Journalist-949]

The drunk driver did not plan on killing anyone. Luigi targeted his victim for assassination. Intent matters.

[u/billding1234]

Two reasons come to mind, both of which are probably true:

First, he made a detailed plan to kill someone for purely political reasons, then travelled across state lines to do it. That’s something that should be very strongly discouraged before it catches on.

Second, the case against him is extremely strong. If the government doesn’t seek the death penalty they don’t have much room to bargain. If they do, he can plead guilty and take life without parole.

[u/CRM79135]

Wonder if all the comments justifying vigilantism really understand what kind of world they are advocating for.

[u/Sheepdog77]

Because it's premeditated murder. Laying in wait amplifies the penalty due to the heinousness of the crime. Liking someone in an accident was not planned, just a tragic event.

[u/j00cifer]

Don’t conflate drunken manslaughter with planned murder, the law in most jurisdictions consider them radically different crimes based on intent.

[u/Spoke_ca]

Luigi didn't kill anyone. He was with me that night.

[u/Fletcher-wordy]

Aside from the obvious answer that it has to do with a CEO being killed rather than your average Joe, I think a part of it is the support he's received for allegedly killing the CEO. I imagine the courts are trying to disincentivise people from copying him, though if he does end up found guilty and sentenced to death, there's no way he doesn't end up a martyr instead.

[u/nuklearink]

He’s potentially facing the death penalty bc it’s politically convenient

[u/Lyr1cal-]

Because he committed terrorism

[u/Traditional_Club9659]

It IS because he is rich and they rich do NOT want poor people thinking this is the way to solve the class war problems.

[u/spookygrumpyskeleton]

Correction: Luigi is accused of killing one man. In the US, people are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. No prosecutors have proven Luigi guilty yet.

It is quite possible still that the wrong man was arrested, and public opinion condemning him will not help anyone

[u/oldncolder]

Same reason Bernie Madoff went to prison. It's ok if you steal from, fuck with or kill regular folks but when you take out one of theirs you're gonna get a consequence. Rat bastards.

[u/FallingUpwardz]

Everyone saying all this rational shit but my answer would be: the big dogs want him gone

[u/Neilpuck]

Because he killed a ceo, the most important protected class in the United states.

[u/khaldun106]

The 1 percent don't like the precedent he set. There is no reason based on logic

[u/CthulhuCultist21]

Because he killed a rich person.

[u/-rogerwilcofoxtrot-]

He killed one of "them", one of the untouchable upper class. Now shut up and get back to work, pleb.

[u/ragmondead]

There is a range of homicides:

1. Driving the speed limit, person jumps in front of you. You had no ability to stop in time. No culpability, no charges.

2. Driving over the speed limit, person jumps in front of you. But for the speeding the person would not have died. Vehicular manslaughter.

3. Driving drunk. Person jumps in front of you. Gross vehicular manslaughter.

4. You are at a bar. You insult someone. That person throws. Punch at you. You pull out a gun and shoot the person. Manslaughter.

5. You are at a bar. A person insults you. You pull out a gun and shoot the person. Murder 2

6. You are at a bar. A person insults you. You go back home and plan his murder. One day later you buy a gun. One day later you go to his house and shoot the person. Murder 1.

7. You intentionally and knowingly sell an addictive and deadly drug. You mis-market it pretending it is both safe and non addictive. You know this is false because you have done financial planning based on knowing how addictive the drug is. You kill 100,000 people. Ironically no charge, but you may have to return 10% of the profit.

[u/UnpluggedZombie]

This reads like a right wing podcaster looking for justification for the death penalty to use as talking points. “Don’t say “you know why”? Give me a break 

[u/Broad_External7605]

Because the rich upper class want to make an example of him. They don't want radicals to assassinate them.

[u/Recent_Permit2653]

It’s too public to not throw the book at him.

[u/Impossible-Shine4660]

His target was rich.

It’s a simple first degree homicide that got picked up by the feds so they can send a message that you don’t attack the rich.

Meanwhile I see so many videos of people being shot online and the police are just “idk it’s a mystery 🤷🏻‍♂️”

[u/PineBNorth85]

The answer is obvious. The rich and powerful want to make an example of him.

You seem to think an impartial justice system still exists. It doesn't.

[u/Mavrickindigo]

Because the Upper class elite want to make an example of him

[u/zowietremendously]

You know why. Because the guy was rich.

[u/CatOfTechnology]

"Please don't give me the reason for his sentence."

He faces the death penalty as a show of force. It's because his actions very clearly speak to the undercurrent of America and a message needs to be sent.

"Go after the people with money thinking that you're going to change the system or scare us and we'll fucking kill you right back."

It's not deep.

This is how shit like this has been going for basically all of modern history.

[u/GlassCannon81]

The reason is literally the one you said not to say. He attacked the ruling class.

[u/Paradox31426]

You do know why, and it is because the guy was rich, Luigi dared to threaten the ruling class, and now they need to make an example of him to put the serfs back in their place, and hope that’s enough to discourage anyone from following his example.

[u/BumblebeeFormal2115 → u/Paradox31426]

NY doesn’t have a death penalty, this case was elevated to the federal level due to the crossing of state lines.

[u/AmbassadorAdorable91]

Id like some Jain time. She sounds fun.

[u/JustBronzeThingsLoL]

You've got to be pretty head-in-the-sand oblivious if you haven't noticed the rule of law dissolving day by day since 2016.

[u/Baller_2025]

its literally to deter other people from gunning down CEOs, billionaires, etc

[u/JoeDaMan_4Life]

It’s called “chill factor” governments, oligarchies both due this to quell any behavior they believe to be specifically harmful or egregious. It’s a political tool from Machiavelli’s book.

[u/pwolf1771]

I think they’re trying to send a message because they know there will be others.

[u/The_Sleepless_Mind]

Because that one person was a rich person that made other rich persons richer by his actions. They don't want to execute him because he killed one person. Hell, he probably saved a bunch of lives because of what he did... at least for a little while. They want him dead because he cost a lot of rich men a lot of money and that is unforgivable.

[u/Primary-Industry-593]

By the letter of the law he (allegedly)committed 1st degree murder which is a capital crime. It was pre-meditated and deliberate. He planned to kill the person he killed. It is being prosecuted by the federal government because he crossed state lines to commit this crime.

[u/mr_mgs11]

No the reason is 100% to send a message. The wealthy are building bunkers all over the place. They know this shit is coming. When climate change starts to hit hard and we have 100s of millions dying of famine there will be a lot more killings. The lesson humanity needs to learn coming out the other side of this is capitalism and extreme wealth are not good for a functioning society.

[u/RetroZelda]

1% of people are scared 

[u/RandomOnlinePerson99]

Because killing rich and important people can be counted as terrorism probably ...

[u/Nodiddy_B]

He killed a rich white person

[u/Life_Variation_3829]

To be made an example of and as an attempt to prevent more copycats from killing the most heavily protected and favored minority as it has existed in history.

[u/ToddTheReaper]

What do you want people to say when the reason is because he was rich???