A lot of people on Lemmy seem to think it would be morally just to acquit this man, even if it can be proven he actually did murder the United Healthcare CEO, because said CEO was contributing to the deaths of many people by denying them essential medical treatments.
I think those lemmings have a deficient understanding or appreciation of the necessity for the rule of law. More likely, I think they’re just running on their own emotions, which is bad thinking.
If he is indeed guilty of the crime, what Mangione did is execute vigilante justice. While some might feel that what he did was justified, what’s not justified is the act of vigilante justice itself; that is, the decision to take the law into your own hands. That is morally wrong on its own and constitutes a major threat to society.
If he did it, he should absolutely not go free; no matter how much I or anyone else approves of the fate his target met, the fact of the matter is that he should have met that fate at the end of a fair trial, not an assassin’s bullet. If you open the door for vigilante justice in one case, you open it up in mall cases. It is categorically incompatible with any justice system.
I think those lemmings have a deficient understanding or appreciation of the necessity for the rule of law.
When the necessity for the rule of law is extended to the president of the united states and our rising oligarch class, I’ll clutch my pearls about circumventing it for Luigi Mangione.
Jury nullification is literally the entire reason to have juries composed of everyday citizens instead of legal professionals. The final safeguard against injustice is a jury’s ability to acquit regardless of the law.
I agree with you but to highlight how different people see that statement I just want to say that some people believe the jury is the final safeguard against courts victimizing people who didn’t commit crimes. And others believe that safeguard goes even to what can be considered a crime.
When the legal system is rigged to allow corporations to exploit and extort the average citizen this is the one of the few avenues we have left. If I kill a person, I go to jail. If a healthcare CEO generates record profits by denying care to people who have paid into the system, he’s protected from his actions by corporate law, and even rewarded with large sums of money.
I understand your point, but it’s based on the false assumption that we live in a just, single tiered justice system
I actually make the same point above. I’m just trying to explain alternate viewpoints of the same sentence here. The system is so broken the jury is our last line of defense in some of this stuff.
I dunno, your argument is built on democracy and the rule of law being the arbiters of what is right. Democratic systems can be weak, and in the case of US healthcare democracy has failed. At that point, how can vigilante justice be wrong if it represents the will of the people?
I’d argue that the will of the people has no correlation with what is moral. The will of the people can be just as immoral as the will of an autocrat. Tyranny of the majority is no better than tyranny of the few when it’s your neck the boot presses down on.
I’m not gonna bother reading all that nonsense, because only one thing matters in this, or any case. He is innocent until proven guilty. If the jury refuses to convict, then he is still innocent of any crime. That’s how things work, and how they have always worked.
This is an eternal debate in a jury system. And while I respect your position I think you are wrong here. Strict adherence to the law works when the law works. However we have police officers who are functionally immune from prosecution; judges using medieval church law to restrict our rights; and laws protecting the right of the wealthy to kill us for profit. (Healthcare is only one example)
The system is broken and jury nullification is a moral response to that.
A lot of people in France seem to think it would be morally just to support resistance fighters, even if it can be proven they actually did murder Nazis, because said Nazis were contributing to the deaths of many people by fighting for the German war machine and Nazism.
I think those French people have a deficient understanding or appreciation of the necessity for the rule of law. More likely, I think they’re just running on their own emotions, which is bad thinking.
If Nazis are indeed guilty of these crimes, what the resistance fighters did is execute vigilante justice. While some might feel that what they did was justified, what’s not justified is the act of vigilante justice itself; that is, the decision to take the law into your own hands. That is morally wrong on its own and constitutes a major threat to society.
If they did it, they should absolutely not go free; no matter how much I or anyone else approves of the fate their targets met, the fact of the matter is that they should have met that fate at the end of a fair trial, not a resistance fighter’s bullet. If you open the door for vigilante justice in one case, you open it up in all cases. It is categorically incompatible with any justice system.
I’m all for having strong personal ideals, and a healthy respect for democracy and justice, but you subscribe to many illusions about our system that make your beliefs pretty idealist. Not that people who call what Luigi did “the will of the people” don’t, but there is a dearth of false consciousness to go around.
We don’t have democracy, justice, civility for all, we have it for a dwindling few. Luigi’s vigilantism is a sign of the utter failure of all the systems you note “should have” taken care of these things.
This is the problem with morality vs ethics. Morality doesn’t require one to understand their own beliefs, or worry about where they came from; only to follow them. What we call democracy is a form of class domination. We deserve more.
idk man he has about as much education of law enforcement as the policemen of america do. Way I see it, he was just doing a regular arrest of an industrial mass murderer, which went a bit wrong. Kinda like it happened to those black gentlemen. I think he should be made to resign from the force.
This would make sense if there was some semblance of the rule of law before. That clearly isn’t the case, so it’s not a useful theoretical to bring up.
A lot of people on Lemmy seem to think it would be morally just to acquit this man, even if it can be proven he actually did murder the United Healthcare CEO, because said CEO was contributing to the deaths of many people by denying them essential medical treatments.
I think those lemmings have a deficient understanding or appreciation of the necessity for the rule of law. More likely, I think they’re just running on their own emotions, which is bad thinking.
If he is indeed guilty of the crime, what Mangione did is execute vigilante justice. While some might feel that what he did was justified, what’s not justified is the act of vigilante justice itself; that is, the decision to take the law into your own hands. That is morally wrong on its own and constitutes a major threat to society.
If he did it, he should absolutely not go free; no matter how much I or anyone else approves of the fate his target met, the fact of the matter is that he should have met that fate at the end of a fair trial, not an assassin’s bullet. If you open the door for vigilante justice in one case, you open it up in mall cases. It is categorically incompatible with any justice system.
When the necessity for the rule of law is extended to the president of the united states and our rising oligarch class, I’ll clutch my pearls about circumventing it for Luigi Mangione.
Jury nullification is literally the entire reason to have juries composed of everyday citizens instead of legal professionals. The final safeguard against injustice is a jury’s ability to acquit regardless of the law.
I agree with you but to highlight how different people see that statement I just want to say that some people believe the jury is the final safeguard against courts victimizing people who didn’t commit crimes. And others believe that safeguard goes even to what can be considered a crime.
When the legal system is rigged to allow corporations to exploit and extort the average citizen this is the one of the few avenues we have left. If I kill a person, I go to jail. If a healthcare CEO generates record profits by denying care to people who have paid into the system, he’s protected from his actions by corporate law, and even rewarded with large sums of money.
I understand your point, but it’s based on the false assumption that we live in a just, single tiered justice system
I actually make the same point above. I’m just trying to explain alternate viewpoints of the same sentence here. The system is so broken the jury is our last line of defense in some of this stuff.
I dunno, your argument is built on democracy and the rule of law being the arbiters of what is right. Democratic systems can be weak, and in the case of US healthcare democracy has failed. At that point, how can vigilante justice be wrong if it represents the will of the people?
I’d argue that the will of the people has no correlation with what is moral. The will of the people can be just as immoral as the will of an autocrat. Tyranny of the majority is no better than tyranny of the few when it’s your neck the boot presses down on.
Hm good point. How does that improve the problems with rule of law though
Yes the point is to prevent tyranny, full stop. Unfortunately the system is seriously poisoned by the wealthy right now.
If the rule of law had been properly applied to restrain the powerful and wealthy, Luigi would have had no reason to PVP a CEO.
I’m not gonna bother reading all that nonsense, because only one thing matters in this, or any case. He is innocent until proven guilty. If the jury refuses to convict, then he is still innocent of any crime. That’s how things work, and how they have always worked.
I see you are clearly a man of education and intellect. LOL.
This is an eternal debate in a jury system. And while I respect your position I think you are wrong here. Strict adherence to the law works when the law works. However we have police officers who are functionally immune from prosecution; judges using medieval church law to restrict our rights; and laws protecting the right of the wealthy to kill us for profit. (Healthcare is only one example)
The system is broken and jury nullification is a moral response to that.
“Vigilante” justice is built into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in the case of tyrants.
You mean the part about the well regulated militia?
A lot of people in France seem to think it would be morally just to support resistance fighters, even if it can be proven they actually did murder Nazis, because said Nazis were contributing to the deaths of many people by fighting for the German war machine and Nazism.
I think those French people have a deficient understanding or appreciation of the necessity for the rule of law. More likely, I think they’re just running on their own emotions, which is bad thinking.
If Nazis are indeed guilty of these crimes, what the resistance fighters did is execute vigilante justice. While some might feel that what they did was justified, what’s not justified is the act of vigilante justice itself; that is, the decision to take the law into your own hands. That is morally wrong on its own and constitutes a major threat to society.
If they did it, they should absolutely not go free; no matter how much I or anyone else approves of the fate their targets met, the fact of the matter is that they should have met that fate at the end of a fair trial, not a resistance fighter’s bullet. If you open the door for vigilante justice in one case, you open it up in all cases. It is categorically incompatible with any justice system.
I’m all for having strong personal ideals, and a healthy respect for democracy and justice, but you subscribe to many illusions about our system that make your beliefs pretty idealist. Not that people who call what Luigi did “the will of the people” don’t, but there is a dearth of false consciousness to go around.
We don’t have democracy, justice, civility for all, we have it for a dwindling few. Luigi’s vigilantism is a sign of the utter failure of all the systems you note “should have” taken care of these things.
This is the problem with morality vs ethics. Morality doesn’t require one to understand their own beliefs, or worry about where they came from; only to follow them. What we call democracy is a form of class domination. We deserve more.
idk man he has about as much education of law enforcement as the policemen of america do. Way I see it, he was just doing a regular arrest of an industrial mass murderer, which went a bit wrong. Kinda like it happened to those black gentlemen. I think he should be made to resign from the force.
If the CEO was black, he would be free and receiving offers to appear on FOX.
This would make sense if there was some semblance of the rule of law before. That clearly isn’t the case, so it’s not a useful theoretical to bring up.