r/NoStupidQuestions • u/Glittery_WarlockWho • 27d ago

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

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.

24.0k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

116

u/1acedude 27d ago

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

31

u/Frequent-Account-344 27d ago

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

3

u/Tvdinner4me2 25d ago

The crime he's accused of

He's not been found guilty yet

3

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Xdddxddddddxxxdxd 27d ago

Would you support pre-meditated murder against a planned parenthood executive?

8

u/sonofaresiii 26d ago

If you think the target shouldn't make a difference in how someone feels about murder, maybe just go ahead and make that argument instead of roundabout rhetorical questions

but before you do maybe consider that this entire country was founded on killing the people we felt were oppressing us, and many of us feel that health insurance execs are doing literally exactly that kind of oppression

2

u/Xdddxddddddxxxdxd 26d ago

“Political extremism and violence are good when I support it”

Also different when you live in a democracy where you have a voice.

4

u/Siaten 26d ago

To be clear, America hasn't been a Democracy for at least a decade, according to multiple studies. We're either a Plutocracy or an Oligarchy.

-5

u/Hentai-Is-Just-Art 26d ago

Impressively dumb comment

2

u/Soccham 26d ago

Impressively dumb as our Fuhrer has started patrolling the streets with his new Gestapo and is seizing more and more power and control over everything including the history museums.

-1

u/Common-Frosting-9434 26d ago

Nah, that's what you look like from the outside tbh, your democratic systems have been railroaded by unfaithful players and now you're a demoracy only by label.

-1

u/Xdddxddddddxxxdxd 26d ago

Typical black pill accelerationist. They don’t leave their basements so free to ignore them.

-3

u/Xdddxddddddxxxdxd 26d ago

I guess I hallucinated voting in the last decade of elections

0

u/Siaten 26d ago

That's just it. Your vote has a statistically insignificant value on whether a bill or a law will pass.

When you do vote, the choices you have been given are specifically tailored by lobbyists to give you the illusion of making a decision.

Go read the Oxford study on how America has become an oligarchy, all of the evidence is there.

2

u/Xdddxddddddxxxdxd 26d ago

Brain dead opinion

-4

u/junglebunglerumble 26d ago

my god youre fucking mental if your actual position is that murder if ok as long as its against someone you feel is oppressing you

4

u/Particular_Fan_3645 26d ago

Sir. Sir. You are delusional if you think it ISN'T. What the hell do you think war is?

-2

u/junglebunglerumble 26d ago

Luigi wasn't a soldier, he is a murderer of another US citizen who is rightfully being prosecuted for the crime. Dont gaslight with 'war' bullshit - is every murderer a solider at war or just the murderers you happen to agree with?

2

u/Thehusseler 26d ago

So your stance, to be clear, is that killing is ok when it is legally sanctioned by the state, and not ok in all other situations?

This isn't an attempt to try and do a gotcha. I just wanna run through this to understand where you're coming from and add some clarity to the discussion.

For example, consider the following people:

Person A believes that killing is wrong, full stop. They are anti-war, anti-government, and also anti-extremist violence. This is a consistent stance.

Person B believes that killing is wrong when done by individuals, allowable when done by the government. This is inherently an inconsistent stance, as various governments are at odds with each other, laws are not inherently just, and nearly all governments were founded through revolutionary violence.

Person C believes that killing is right or wrong based on context. Killing a Nazi is fine, while killing a planned parenthood doctor is wrong, not because of the killing but because of the context. Like it or not, this can be a consistent stance too. Killing isn't the constant here, it's the contextual application of said killing.

Person D believes that killing is wrong, but also that killing people they disagree with is ok. This is obviously inconsistent. They will decry killing inherently but will support various killers, wars, etc. This often relies on an illusory belief in an objective rule of law and order.
The person you were responding, to what I could follow, was expressing the beliefs of Person C. Which is quite distinct from Person D, but that seems to be what you interpreted their comments as.

2

u/Particular_Fan_3645 26d ago

Objective morality is not a thing, Class war is a thing, and yes, just the ones I agree with. Deal with it.

0

u/Xdddxddddddxxxdxd 26d ago

Would you trade the life of a healthcare ceo for the life of a planned parenthood director? Both can be killed in the name of political violence against oppressors by different people.

We live in a time where people can change things without mob rule (violence). It’s the main reason society is more stable than ever before.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Pure_Ad3402 26d ago

Nah. He is valid. D-bag.

-5

u/Stunning-Handle-4064 27d ago edited 27d ago

no i wouldnt. would i support pre-meditated murder against a baby? go ahead, ask me another question since you seem to be on this intellectual path

just kidding, you fell off the path before i was even born lol.

would you support a pre-meditated murder against hitler?

are you here to argue objective morality? you cant even extrapolate your own logic one move ahead lol.

leave the heavy thought experiments to others old timer.

3

u/Xdddxddddddxxxdxd 27d ago

Cool. Next time someone wants to go commit a violent act we as a nation will have them ask you if it’s ok first.

-1

u/radahnkiller1147 27d ago

I will never mourn a murderer's death, whether they kill sick people with insurance or babies.

12

u/RaisonDetritus 27d ago edited 27d ago

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?

15

u/1acedude 27d ago

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

2

u/RaisonDetritus 27d ago

Because DP is not required, categorically in favor is also considered unwilling to follow the law.

That's an interesting point. I hadn't thought about it from the other direction.

5

u/1acedude 27d ago

to shed more light on that, there's "mitigation factors". To sentence someone to death a jury has to find more "aggravating factors" than "mitigating factors". So if you're categorically in favor of death, you wouldn't be willing to consider those mitigating factors. As an example, one factor is low IQ

2

u/Tvdinner4me2 25d ago

Odd to consider not wanting to vote for someone else's death to be an extreme belief

1

u/1acedude 25d ago

No argument here my friend, I think it’s bullshit you can be stricken for refusing to sentence to death. I think it also entirely contradicts the “jury of your peers” shit. Its turned into “jury of your peers, that we think are appropriate and we like and if we don’t like them then they’re gone”

1

u/Superstinkyfarts 17d ago

Seems like it'd select for people more likely to vote guilty as well.

0

u/johnny-Low-Five 27d ago

Yeah I had no problem on the questionnaire but my dad was an NYPD Homicide Detective, Defense attorney asked if anyone had family or close friends in law enforcement. Raised my hand thinking I was going home (I wanted to serve) he asked me 2 follow ups the first "Do you believe everyone arrested is guilty?" I was 19 and chuckled and said of course not. He was happy prosecution wasn't bothered. Then he asked if I had ever been in a street fight and did I think hurting someone in a fight was a crime regardless of circumstances? I said no, he was happy prosecution seemed to like my father being a cop and didn't want to waste a challenge (I ended up juror #2) so early as the defendant stabbed someone in the eye (the stabbed guy pulled the knife though) and probably figured I would see the difference between bloody noses and black eyes vs a literal missing eyeball!

Quick question, by categorically in favor of the DP what exactly do you mean? Is that believing anyone guilty should get the death penalty when possible or do you mean anyone who absolutely believes some crimes are so horrific that death is the appropriate punishment?

I'm hoping you mean the first one because the second group is where I would fit, with a caveat that personally I am only OK with death where their guilt isn't really in question, like on video or multiple eye witnesses AND your dna or eye witnesses, people who testify you said you were gonna do it and a confession. Death is forever and there are no takebacks, life in prison without any possibility of release is there for such situations where there is even a .1% chance they didn't do it.

3

u/1acedude 27d ago

to answer your question, it's the latter; if a juror feels some crimes warrant death no matter what.

The law only permits death when the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors. That's because a death sentence must be individually considered, it can't be automatic. One of the most common is involving child sex crimes in addition to the murder. Lots of people feel this requires automatic death. But law requires, for example, consideration of a defendant's low IQ, the fact his mother drank and did drugs while defendant was in the womb and that impaired his development and the way his brain functions. Here's the statutory list of factors: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3592

2

u/vastapple666 27d ago

You should read up on this case if you’re a lawyer. Pam Bondi just went on TV and announced the death penalty before he was even indicted and totally ignored the detailed capital case procedures in the DOJ Manual. It’s batshit and I don’t understand why more lawyers aren’t up in arms.

1

u/SassyMoron 26d ago

What factors make it "worth it"?

1

u/1acedude 26d ago

I’m a defense attorney. I couldn’t say because I’d fundamentally opposed to the death penalty. I don’t believe governments should be allowed to murder their own citizens

-4

u/Hatta00 27d ago

In total it creates a lot more work for everyone involved to seek DP

But it's worth it.