r/NoStupidQuestions • u/Glittery_WarlockWho • 28d 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

-3

u/junglebunglerumble 27d 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

5

u/Particular_Fan_3645 27d 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.