Thursday, December 19, 2024

New York (Predictably) Overcharging Luigi Mangione – Who Needs a Rule of Law?

A senseless act of bloodshed.  Followed by a senseless act of State lawlessness.  <Sigh>  It isn’t that people would be better if the government were…it’s that the government would simply be less bad.

New York law, like the Model Penal Code, recognizes that premeditation and deliberation (including “lying in wait”) are inapposite when it comes to murder.  Sometimes, planning makes a crime worse.  Sometimes, by contrast, it makes it less so—euthanasia is typically the paradigm of a premeditated and deliberate killing, yet it is far from being either the most depraved (deontologically) or the most dangerous (consequentially).  Traditional first-degree murder thus accepted those elements only for reasons of historic State-protective anomaly; New York law hewed back to that original intent by, for example, including the murders of judges as being first degree.

So, Luigi Mangione purposely killing Brian Thompson would be second-degree murder.  There is no special protection for CEOs in American law.  New York’s decision to make a mockery of that law by alleging the killing “terrorism” will surprise no one who follows American criminal law.  Overcharging is rampant.  But it ought to sadden anybody who cares about justice.  When the State doesn’t respect law, it is much harder to sell that anybody should.  And that, of course, is precisely the opposite of the message appropriate to these events.

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2024/12/new-york-predictably-overcharging-luigi-mangione-who-needs-a-rule-of-law.html

Cases of Interest, Criminal Law | Permalink

Comments

Perhaps you saw former US Attny McQuade’s piece coming to the opposite conclusion. She thinks that by overcharging, future shooters will somehow be deterred (a completely unsupported claim, among other problems).

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/luigi-mangione-terrorism-unitedhealthcare-ceo-shooting-rcna184780

Posted by: Sam J. Merchant | Dec 19, 2024 8:23:56 AM

Yes, and I entirely agree with you - both an empirical claim without empirics, and legally and ethically wrong regardless.

Posted by: SEH | Dec 19, 2024 9:50:08 AM

Do you think the federal murder charge will stick? It sounds like they are basing the murder charge in Count 3 of the Complaint on the predicate "crimes of violence" in Counts 1 and 2, i.e., stalking. Legally speaking, stalking is not a crime of violence, right?

Posted by: Not a Criminal | Dec 19, 2024 6:17:59 PM

I do think there is a problem. As I read the statute, and as you'd expect for a stalking crime, those charges require that Mangione "engage[ ] in conduct that ... place[d] th[e] [victim] in reasonable fear of ... death." How's that happen when you execute somebody from behind? It's yet more prosecutorial overreach, this time to make the crime death eligible. This is an obvious case of second-degree murder in the state of New York. Just do the 'right thing' and prosecute according to the law.

Posted by: SEH | Dec 19, 2024 8:27:37 PM

Disagree that this is "overcharged." Mangione was clearly trying to influence public policy with this act. It seems that does qualify under NY law as an "act of terrorism." https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._penal_law_section_490.05 .

You may disagree that this *should* qualify as an "act of terrorism," but that's a disagreement with the law as written, not the prosecutor's charging decision. Titles of laws aren't the law. This murder fits in the definition that the legislature saw fit to write, and there's apparently probable cause for it. Prosecutors charge high, in part, to negotiate down to avoid a trial.

Posted by: Jason Walker | Dec 24, 2024 11:36:30 AM

Thanks for engaging and for pointing out the citation for the relevant statutory language. Of course, “trying to influence public policy” is a paraphrase, and I don’t think a good one. The law’s actual wording is too broad (intent to “(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping”), but when considered by any reasonably intelligent reader in the context of its passage days after September 11, 2001, I disagree with your interpretation and application. I certainly agree with your final sentence, but that is part of the disease.

Posted by: SEH | Dec 25, 2024 5:06:02 AM

P.S. For more on the importance of the drafting history, etcetera, one might see the opinion here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12428409407476967862

Posted by: SEH | Dec 25, 2024 5:25:10 AM

Post a comment