In December, Luigi Mangione was arrested for shooting health insurance executive Brian Thompson. Last week, Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, announced that she was seeking the death penalty. It’s a highly unusual announcement, since Mangione hasn’t even been indicted yet on a federal level. (He has been indicted in Manhattan.) By intervening in this high-profile case, the Trump administration has made clear that it believes that CEOs are especially important people whose deaths need to be swiftly and mercilessly avenged.

  • Rachel@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    158
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    I think the death penalty being on the table would increase the likelihood of the jury finding a reasonable doubt or jury nullification. It would only hurt the prosecution imo.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      125
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yup. One of the main reasons people oppose the death penalty is because of the proven record of innocent people receiving death sentences. Approximately 4% of people who receive death sentences are actually innocent. We execute many innocent people in this country. The system absolutely does not operate on the principle of “it is better for 1000 guilty to go free than for one innocent to be unjustly punished.”

        Many oppose the death penalty because they realize just how poor our justice system is at actually determining guilt and innocence. Those who assume it is near-infallible will be much more likely to support the death penalty. So if you screen out those opposed to death sentences, you also screen out people who are more skeptical of the criminal justice system overall.

      • LeninsOvaries@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Why the fuck does the prosecution have the ability to put punishments on the table that are known to bias jury selection?

      • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 days ago

        Doesn’t the defense have just as much say in terms of who gets selected out and which signals are used to parse that

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Not really, no.

          AFAIK, the defense and the prosecution get the same number of “just because it’s bad for my side” exclusions, but not being inclined to render a guilty verdict if there’s a possibility of the death penalty is an automatic exclusion that doesn’t count towards the prosecution’s “freebies”.

          So yeah, the moment death penalty is on the table, the jury will be biased AND the defense will be much more likely to consider a plea deal for a lesser punishment, further stacking the deck in favor of the prosecution winning one way or the other regardless of actual guilt.

    • neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      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)?

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        They won’t “do away with it” in any official way, but they’ve already stopped obeying it.

      • EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 days ago

        Luckily it would be really hard for them to actually get rid of it. I wouldn’t put it past them to try to start doing summary executions or just illegally trying to detain people without trial or whatever but there’s 0 chance they get the support to actually remove that amendment.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 days ago

          The tact taken by this administration isn’t trying to amend the Constitution, its to simply ignore it. There are three branches of government in the USA. trump’s Executive branch and the Legislative appear to be in nearly lock-step in ignoring the Constitution and their duties to uphold it. The Supreme Court has capitulated in almost every action trump’s Executive has asked, with only minor pushback. The recent 9-0 Supreme Court decision requiring the trump administration to return of Ábrego García to the USA is the first real pushback we’ve seen. So far trump is continuing to ignore the return requirement.

          In other words, the Constitution is worthless if the bodies in power charged with its defense choose to simply break their oath of office and not defend it.

    • Chozo@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        Trump always starts with the “worst” criminals as he knows it’s hard for Democrats or others to object since they don’t want to be “on the side of criminals,” but it won’t end there.

    • primemagnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Trump and his sycophants are really really dumb. Like, really. All they have is muscle. Zero brains.