cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/8223000
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2026
778 points (99.0% liked)
Luigi Mangione
2699 readers
647 users here now
A community to post anything related to Luigi Mangione.
Please respect Lemmy.world ToS. Don't plot who should be murdered next in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why do they prosecute people multiple times at different levels of government? Doesn't that seem kind of unfair?
Laws here are intended to protect to the wealthy. Its illegal for homeless people to sleep anywhere outside. Law and fairness are not ideas that ever touch each other.
When they say "land of the free" it's not free as in freedom, but free as in unpaid.
Name one thing that's free in America for the masses.
Suffering
The United States is a federation.
Each state has a code of laws, and the federal government has one. You break a state law, you're going to state court. You break a federal law, you're going to federal court. You break a state law and a federal law, you're going to state and federal court.
Only if you piss off the rich. A good example is Ted Bundy. Murdered non rich people in 4(?) different states, a situation where it would make complete sense the federal government would be bringing the charges because the crimes weren't all within the jurisdiction of just one state... Yet no federal charges were brought against him, they left it to the states.
That would have been so very high profile back then. Did the lack of federal charges tick everybody off? Just wondering if anyone was going for a “let's play this out through all of the four courts and that'll be enough” game plan, or if it was ineptitude, focus elsewhere, your explanation, etc.
Also has that happened in recent history within the past couple of administrations? If you know
In my personal opinion (anecdotal and possibly wrong) I feel like we had a period of a few decades where there was not so much of a state/federal governments not getting along. Unlike today where you have the FBI blatantly taking cases out of states hands and trying to not allow them to have evidence as we are seeing in say Colorado or California. Jimmie Carter would have been president when Bundy was caught in Florida. I think there may have been a trust in the states to deal with it. Floridas government very much was trying to take pride in the fact that they would execute him from what I know of the case, but I was born in the late 80s so I wasn't around for the the arrest and public reaction in 78'. Someone else may be able to shine light on the differences between how it was portrayed to be handled after/now vs how it was taken by the public then.
Because it is such a high profile case, every level of the bureaucracy wants a bite at the apple. Everyone wants to get in front of a camera and say "We're doing something about it!" to a gaggle of social media influencers and party apparatchiks with press badges.
So corruption?
Not corruption, per say. This is a fatal flaw of any democratic institution. You need to be seen doing your job or people will assume it isn't getting done. So more and more of the job of an executive level official is marketing yourself.
Everyone who isn't running around cutting their own promos is setting themselves up for defeat against someone who does.
I'm always defending politicians, so… no, just kidding, I'm not. But I will offer a more sympathetic explanation not from experience, just from my hindquarters.
If there were three different people in power who are all independently upset about a crime, I could imagine each of them figuring out what the suspect did in their jurisdiction. That’s to fight back personally as well as to have a story for the next town hall when someone includes the crime in a long list of places why $currentCity has gone down the tubes over $longPeriod
So then have these three separate cases because everyone felt disrespected and wants a billboard, “don’t mess with us“. Maybe it wasn't very relevant that the perp scraped a mailbox while peeling out of the scene of the crime, but is that a reason for the postmaster not to have his friends from the US postal inspection over? :)
There are valid reasons to do so, that wouldn't necessarily feel unfair against someone who for sure did something wrong. Basically, it's so that one sticks. Derek Chauvin was charged on second degree unintentional murder, third degree murder, and second degree manslaughter.
These all have different degrees of severity, including average and maximum punishments.
Unintentional 2nd degree is the hardest, and requires a felony (3rd degree assault) to stick. Max penalty 40y, average 12.5.
3rd degree murder requires less; just an "eminently dangerous" act with a "depraved mind" and no regard for life. 25y max, same average
2nd degree Manslaughter is just culpable negligence that can cause unreasonable risk of death or great harm. 10 year max, 4 average.
Now they have to convince a Jury to convict on those charges. If they don't think the felony happened, then the first charge is out. If they don't think he had a "depraved mind", then the second charge is also out. So to make sure he actually gets a punishment, they charge all charges they believe they can get a jury to accept. Charging in both federal and state can also protect against only one politically motivated Governor or president from pardoning all charges, so they would need two pardons.
In addition, if the federal government is worried the state trial might be too biased, they may want their own charges just in case. It seems unfair because you may identify with his actions, but if this was someone lynching people in an extremely racist state (I'd like to say like in the past, but maybe even today) the federal government tacking on charges (in a better admin) could protect against racists just absolving someone from said murder.
In Derek Chauvin's case all charges were successfully convicted, but that isn't always the case. It is a double edged sword though.
Thank you for the explanation (sincerely).
Beyond the pardon thing, it just seems like they're having multiple bites at the same pie whilst being able to ignore double jeopardy.
It would seem saner to make them commit to whatever the maximum crime/penalty they are aiming for and ignore the rest. Instead it seems like they (the government, in all its forms) can just try to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.
Yeah, with corrupt governments in place it's used more negatively than positively. While there are valid reasons, in practice it's misplaced good intentions at best, more what you're saying more likely.