this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
718 points (98.8% liked)
Actually Infuriating
545 readers
93 users here now
Community Rules:
Be Civil
Please treat others with decency. No bigotry (disparaging comments about any race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, etc). Personal attacks and bad-faith argumentation are not allowed.
Content should be actually infuriating
Politics and news are allowed, as well as everyday life. However, please consider posting in partner communities below if it is a better fit.
Mark NSFW/NSFL posts
Please mark anything distressing (death, gore, etc.) as NSFW and clearly label it in the title.
Keep it Legal and Moral
No promoting violence, DOXXing, brigading, harassment, misinformation, spam, etc.
Partner Communities
- Mildly Infuriating
- Furiously Infuriating
- Memes
- Political Memes
- Lemmy Shitpost
- Not The Onion
- You Should Know
- Lemmy Be Wholesome
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's actually good that the US is trying to be harsher about it. Seems unlikely the jury will conclude the crime warrants that punishment, leading to a not guilty (since the jury only gets to say guilty or not) and no double jeopardy. IMO this is actually how Luigi will avoid much, if any, prison time, like with the Casey Anthony case. Happens with other murders where the prosecution fucks up by demanding a harsh conviction where there is too much doubt or mitigating factors. They get greedy, and lose the entire case.
Unfortunately, punishments (except the death penalty) may not be considered when determining guilt in trials by jury.
While it will be tough to find people who don't know anything about this, the courts will be able to find an impartial jury, and one that likely doesn't follow the news or know of the potential punishment.
It will never be stated to the jury, and technically no jury member is allowed to mention it if they do know it.
The terrorism charges on the other hand will be extremely difficult to prove. And that might be what frees him.
Edit: This comment has been corrected by the person below. The death penalty decision comes as a secondary trial after a defendant has been found guilty. Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/sentencing
And that's a big problem with our system, in that if you happen to have the misfortune of being involved in a high profile case, you have to be judged by uninformed idiots.
Jury members are typically highly capable of reasoning and understanding as they are carefully chosen from a large pool of candidates. They tend to be highly educated professionals (for many reasons, not just because lawyers choose them) who just also happen to not closely follow news, politics, or be chronically online. They likely know about some guy killed a healthcare CEO a few months ago, but there knowledge of the situation is only surface level and not influenced by media biases. This makes them best able to form rational conclusions as a result of the trial.