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/Elemental-Master]

Imo, someone who decided to get drunk or high on drugs and then drive a vehicle, and cause an accident and death is just as a murderer as someone who plan ahead to execute their victim.

Sadly those who can make the decision to judge a drunk person as murderer are usually not the victims/family members of victims of such traffic accidents, so they don't care. 

Sadly also since the victim in that case was a CEO of a major insurance company (to my understanding) then those in power probably feel threatened so they want to make an example. 

[u/Dull-Law3229 → u/Elemental-Master]

That's not how criminal law works.

There are 2 essential elements:

1. The intention. Intention is typically in four grades: specific intent, general intent, reckless, and negligent. Specific intent is premeditation, one that is planned out. We consider that the most heinous. General intent is just killing, one not necessarily with planning. Someone cuts you off and you shoot at them with your gun, or you intentionally cause serious injury to someone that you know could be deadly, etc. It lacks premeditation. Reckless is what you're referring to. It's when you don't intend someone to die, but you took an action that has an overwhelmingly substantial risk of death.

So a person who knows he is epileptic knows that he shouldn't be driving. A person who drinks and drives knows beforehand that drinking will impair his driving. Contrast this to someone who drank a lot of punch that he didn't know was spiked and then suddenly got drunk and caused an accident. He wouldn't be hit with involuntary manslaughter because he wasn't reckless, but he might be hit with negligent homicide if he realized something was up and he should have pulled over when he started feeling the effects.

1. The action.

Victims themselves are generally not relevant for most crimes, although by law they sometimes tack in additional penalties for killing a copy or a kid or a domestic partner. These are crime enhancers and don't determine liability though.

Luigi killing a dude in a premeditated murder is just that. It doesn't matter if the guy were a CEO, the next incarnation of Jesus, or a pedophile. It's intention, and action, that matters.

[u/Elemental-Master → u/Dull-Law3229]

isn't there intention when someone knows the danger of driving drunk yet chose to do so, basically deciding they don't care who might be harmed?

And yes, in a way someone social status does effect when it comes to crimes and punishments, that guy was a CEO so the story blew up, if it was just some rarndom unimportant guy, it would have barely make it to the local news. The CEO got to global news.

[u/Dull-Law3229 → u/Elemental-Master]

Yes there is, by drinking the alcohol, knowing that it would make you drunk, you are taking a reckless action and if someone dies you are liable for involuntary manslaughter, a second degree felony in Texas. It might even be enhanced to a first degree penalty under certain circumstances and that could theoretically net someone 20 years in prison. It's not a slap in the wrist. This is different than if, for example, a person who didn't realize he was downing spiked punch became drunk, because in this situation the person was not taking a reckless risk by drinking what he thought was unspiked punch.

However, taking a risk that could recklessly kill someone is different from intentionally, with premeditation, killing someone. We consider it very different, since in one situation a person does not intend to kill anyone (and may even wish to avoid it), whereas in the other death is the goal. Therefore, penalties are different.

In criminal law, it's bifurcated in 1) finding criminal liability and 2) punishing the offender. Who the victim is, and who the offender is, is only relevant for meeting the elements of intent and action for 1）

For Luigi, he crossed state lines, which can make it a federal issue. If he had stayed in New York, it would be a state issue. But in either case, there's no way there won't be criminal liability. The public evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates motive, and a detailed plan to kill a man. Even a sympathetic jury would find that it's really an open and shut case. Like do you think Luigi didn't intend to kill the CEO?

For punishing the offender, courts tend to take into consideration more factors related to the offender. Likely that Luigi has no prior criminal record may weigh heavily in his favor. Maybe a judge may think the CEO deserved it. But it's an easy win for a prosecutor to prove first degree murder.

[u/Elemental-Master → u/Dull-Law3229]

I'm not saying he did not intend to kill him, nor do I support that action. At the same time I do have to ask, considering that that murder also blew the story of using A.I. to effectively decide who's gonna live and who's going to die, would that be taken into consideration too? Why could someone as powerful and rich as that CEO have effectively the legal right (in my opinion) to either let people live by giving them the money they paid for years on years or kill them just for the sake of keeping shareholders happy?

I'm not from the US, but I'm pretty sure that many others who are not from the US would agree with me that this practice that insurance companies in the US are allowed to do, this practice of basically preying on people then leaving them to die, is looking very bad in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Luigi didn't wake up in the morning and just thought "hey I really wanna kill some CEO just for the fun of it." It happened because it seems in the US that the powerful have the right over life and death and can basically kill as little or as many as they want, while taking money from them, without facing any kind of justice. And now they can delegate that to machines, just for the sake of saving an extra dollar.

I'm not saying that CEO deserved that, I believe that there are better ways to punish and/or pass on a valueable lesson for life, but I can understand why it happened, and sadly why now it will be used as an example intimidate people and to protect the powerfull, without even trying to fix the system that caused that murder in the first place.

These again are just my humble opinions...

[u/Dull-Law3229 → u/Elemental-Master]

It is perfectly fine to dislike the CEO of a healthcare company and to dislike the profit-focus of American healthcare. I personally think it's horrible.

The issue is that the means for which Luigi took action is unacceptable. Murder by default needs to be an unlawful killing, and it's unlawful to kill even vile people unless there's a lawful basis for it. Here, the lawful basis simply does not exist.

I too am a great proponent of universal healthcare for everyone, full stop. But killing the CEO doesn't change that because that particular CEO, and all the other CEOs, are following a lawful mandate to increase shareholder value by maximizing profitability. We as a society are awarding them for achieving those mandates. The United Healthcare CEO was just better at following the mandate.

What should have happened is that those in Congress should be passing laws mandating universal free healthcare, and that CEOs are incentivized to maximize societal value.

My personal opposition is that the CEOs are not given notice. We have laws and institutions that award that CEO's behavior, and then we start shooting CEOs for achieving the mandates we give them. That's not sensible. If he is doing something illegal, he should be arrested. If he doing something unacceptable, then pass laws that regulate his behavior (like what we already do).

[u/Normal-Ordinary-4744 → u/Elemental-Master]

It kinda seems like you’re saying the CEO deserved being killed by Luigi

[u/Elemental-Master → u/Normal-Ordinary-4744]

It kinda seem you have reading comprehension problems then...