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.
Just for the sake of argument. You say that because he killed and probably will kill again, death penalty is justifiable . By the same line of reasoning this should be valid as well for the judge, the attorney and every other person responsible for the final execution. You could even make the argument for the victim, as he killed people by actively rejecting proper medical care in multiple cases.
The judge and the enforcers are empowered by the State. The attorney is empowered by the Bar Association. The jury is a collection of Luigi’s peers to provide unanimous judgement.
This is not Luigi vs a room full of random people. This is Luigi vs The United States of America and Luigi vs New York State. We all collectively participated in the system that wrote these laws and how to enforce them, or at least I hope we do.
If you don’t like how it works? Good, go pursue political action unlike Luigi.
Still a not a valid argument. It is an argument of authority, a typical logical fallacy. Just because a group of people is reputable and says it right does not mean it is right. I mean a possible jail sentence would be as adequate to prevent him from doing it again, as a counter example. So the argument for killing him would basically narrow down to “because authorities said it is okay”.
Not everything is a fallacy because it is an appeal to authority, it becomes a fallacy when an otherwise illogical choice is appealed to simply because of authority.
When somebody murders another person it is wrong, and it then falls on the public to decide what the best course of action is to prevent such things from happening again to people, including people like themselves. They decided a long time ago that the death sentence was easier than caging a man for life. Now you can try to argue that this is illogical, but you haven’t, you’ve simply argued that the public is wrong without any reasoning.
Not just a reputable group of people, the public as a whole. Democracy. JFC, did you even read my reply?