The violence inherent in the system

[Sue U]

Monty Python were of course making jokes in Holy Grail, but the point is valid. It's the spin, though -- and awareness of its origin -- that matters when considering What Is To Be Done. This is a bit of a long read as social media go, but a useful reminder about perspective and framing the narrative:

Reframes
Peaceful Solutions

A.R. Moxon
Dec 8, 2024

On respectable and profitable human-suffering engines, the murder of a CEO, propriety in a land where life has been cheapened, and some good news for those who seek peaceful solutions.


UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was murdered on the streets of New York last week, gunned down on his way to an investor's meeting. There's a manhunt for the killer, and the murder has dominated news coverage in ways that the thousands of other gun murders that occur every year across the nation do not.

There's also been quite a lot of talk on comments boards about whether or not he may have deserved it, or at least that he might have had it coming, and there have been a lot of jokes about denying sympathy due to pre-existing conditions, and tens of thousands of laughter emoji reactions on the UnitedHealthcare webpage, and so on and so forth, this sort of thing has caused quite a bit of consternation, given that murder is generally understood to be a bad thing, and most of us generally don't want to live in a world where people are gunned down in the street. Many people detect in this response a disgustingly callous disregard for human life. So it is that from the halls of power and corridors of justice and on the platforms of influence, we are reminded that Brian Thompson was a human being, and that he had a family who loved him, and that violence is never the answer, and that we must always seek peaceful solutions—and who could argue against seeking peaceful solutions? I won't. Who would say that Thompson was not a human being or deny that his family loved him? I don't and won't. Who thinks violence is the best solution to problems? Not me.

Speaking of violence: last year a homeless man named Jordan Neely was choked to death on a subway, and last week his killer—an ex-Marine named Daniel Penny—had second-degree manslaughter charges dismissed against him, though he still faces a less serious charge of criminally-negligent homicide (he faces 4 or maybe 0 years in prison if convicted). And ever since this killing, there have come from the halls of power and the corridors of justice and the platforms of influence a steady stream of explanations why Jordan Neely may have deserved what he got, or why the killing might not be such a tragedy, and why violence, while regrettable, is sometimes the answer, and why peaceful solutions, while desirable, are sometimes just not possible. Did Neely have a family? Did they love him? I haven't heard. There doesn't seem to be much curiosity on the topic. All this has caused quite a bit of consternation, though not necessarily from the same people consterned by the killing of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. But many, particularly those who feel that they have also been made vulnerable by the same systemic failure that failed Jordan Neely, detect in this response to Neely's murder a disgustingly callous disregard for human life.

Some might think I just changed the subject. Let me talk similarities.

Everyone involved in both stories is a human being, unless you ask our society—the parts of it where power is negotiated and narratives of permission are generated, anyway. In the corridors of power, the halls of justice, on platforms of influence, some people in our society are clearly deemed to be human beings— their lives justified, their potential valuable, their deaths tragedies—while others are deemed to be nothing more than a danger, a drain, a discomfort, a problem to be solved by making them not exist quite so much. The primary dividing line appears to be whether you've got money, or, failing that, whether you can make somebody money.

We're talking about Jordan Neely and Brian Thompson, but we could be talking about many things. We could be talking about the immigrants that Donald Trump and his fascist party are dehumanizing by framing them as an infectious disease and vilifying by casting them as a threat to national security, and terrorizing them by getting ready to deport them and their citizen children. We could talk about recent revelations that Trump thinks that disabled people should just die, or the ways that our society is primed to accommodate that viewpoint. We could talk about how world's richest man Elon Musk has been appointed to a draconian and corrupt and totally fabricated "efficiency" agency, and how he has proposed cutting all veterans' health benefits, which will grow the ranks of the unhoused and untreated. We could talk about how the presence of people from Black and other historically marginalized communities in spaces from which they had previously been excluded is being treated as a foreign invasion and an existential danger by federal judges and other powerful white supremacists. We could be talking about any number of things that clearly demonstrate the core traditional spiritual belief of the United States that life must be earned, and making money is how you earn it, that clearly demonstrate the dominant belief that if you haven't earned life, then you are a question to which violence is often the answer.

Jordan Neely wasn't making anybody money, that's for sure. He was understood to be a danger to himself and others, even though he was the one who was murdered on that subway, so pretty obviously it was he who was in the most danger, as unhoused people almost always are. Maybe Neely even was a danger; unhoused people tend to be desperate, after all, and desperation can make people unsafe. But I also remember that we live in a world where millions of people are systemically abandoned to suffer and die on the streets even though housing them would be cheaper than doing so, and I note that it is not the people suffering homelessness who decided to make society work that way, so we might wonder if it was Jordan Neely creating the danger, or if it was someone else making a choice somewhere else.

Speaking of making choices that create dangers for others, United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was making people an awful lot of money. He grew profits for his organization by tens of billions of United States dollars, and for that service he was paid tens of millions of those dollars. We might look at how it was that he made himself so valuable a person during his life that his death should be an occasion for those in the halls of power and the corridors of justice and the platforms of influence—who are so frequently forgetful about the humanity of others—to remind us so frequently of his humanity.

What is it about this murder that makes so many people remember that violence is never the answer, particularly when those same people usually spend their time explaining why most instances of empowered violence, while regrettable, are inevitable, or even necessary?

What is it about this specific killing that made people who usually spend their time defending violent solutions start to become so enthusiastic about peaceful ones?

Well, I too would like to find peaceful solutions. So let's look to see what Brian Thompson did with his life.

Maybe you've noticed that it's getting harder to truly know what's going on these days. Legacy media—controlled by corrupt billionaires and addicted to the false equivalency of balance rather than dedicated to the principle of truth—has failed us. I am recommending that if you have money to do so, you subscribe to independent journalists and writers instead. This week I'm suggesting you support Radley Balko, a journalist dedicated to documenting the abuses of the institution of policing in his newsletter, The Watch. Radley does the important work of real journalism without being beholden to billionaire interests.

Thompson made his millions and made his company his billions by running a very profitable machine that creates human suffering called a health insurance company. This sort of human-suffering machine creates wealth by putting itself between health care and patients, and then by denying that health care, or at least denying to pay for most of it. This forces sick human beings to make the gut-wrenching decision of whether to be financially ruined or to "just die" (to quote our incoming president). It forces the loved ones of sick people to watch their spouse or parent or children die from neglect, and often to watch them suffer unimaginably on the way to dying. It's an industry that eats vulnerable people.

It's the sort of unimaginable cruelty that you would think would be treated every day as the shockingly callous disregard for human life that it is—if you are the sort of person who is actually shocked by callous disregard for human life, that is, and not simply interested in upholding a monstrously cruel status quo. The tens of millions of people who have been financially ruined and who have died suffering needlessly from engineered systemic neglect also were human beings, just as Brian Thompson was, and they also had families that loved them, just as Brian Thompson did. By the tens of millions, the survivors also mourn the killing of their loved ones—whose deaths, while enacted by deliberate choice and with clear motive, are not deemed murders, because the decisions that caused their anguish and death were legal, and, more to the point, were extremely profitable.

According to reports, UnitedHealthcare denied more health coverage than any other provider, which made it more profitable, which made it more competitive, which means that it's more and more likely that more and more people will be denied medical care by other providers, and more and more people will be financially ruined, and more and more people will spend the last years and months of their lives crushed as much by unfeeling and needless bureaucracy as by sickness, leaving behind millions and millions of traumatized surviving loved ones.

So that's how Brian Thompson became such a valuable life in a country where so few lives are valued: He ran one of the most profitable human suffering engines in the whole country. He made mountains of money for a few people, all of whom already had more money than they will ever need—a list that includes himself and his surviving family, who loved him.

This reminder about Thompson's family goes out regularly, because, again, a lot of people have declined to mourn the death of the man who ran the most competitively cruel human suffering machine in a country full of them, and many even seem to be cheering it, and this makes people in the halls of power and the platforms of influence extremely nervous. They remember Thompson's humanity, even though "humanity" is something they seem largely forgetful about when it comes to all the millions of people—sick and desperate and often on the streets like Jordan Neely—who suffer and die every year because of the effects of extremely profitable and respectable human cruelty engines, which are run and maintained by human beings because somebody has to run them, because a human suffering machine is deemed an intractable part of the way we do health care. Intractable, not because it actually saves money or returns superior results, but because it makes profits, and profits are the point of our health care system, and this is not controversial or shocking in the same way as ten thousand laughing reaction emojis on Facebook are. Brian Thompson's murder won't stop the human suffering machine or probably even slow it down. Somebody else—probably someone also with a family who also loves them—will run it now.

It's interesting that people so committed to normalizing human cruelty would be so surprised to see it reflected back at them. As a society, it's already been determined that millions of human lives are a perfectly acceptable cost of doing business. Those who wanted it that way paid a lot of money and killed a lot of people to make it so. They should perhaps be less amazed when people whose lives they intended as payment meet them on the shockingly heartless field they insisted upon.

It seems to me that some of the wealthiest and most powerful individuals in our society think they can create one kind of world for everyone—a world where human life is disposable and as cheap as it can possibly be made—but then think they don't have to live in the world they've forced us all to occupy, too. They think they can make a world where some people matter and other people don't, and in so doing will remain perpetually the ones who matter.

They're certainly going to try to make it so. There are shocking policies already in place and even more shocking ones being proposed. I think we will find that wealthy and powerful and influential people, who have decided that our healthcare system is very complicated and its problems intractable and unsolvable, will suddenly find that structural changes have become very simple and easy when the topic is not the overall well-being of humans in society, but rather the safety and security and reputations of those who generate profit by destroying the overall well-being of humans in society. I think the murder of a CEO will be treated as dangerous, in a way that millions and millions of people suffering for years in despair and dying broke decade after decade never has been, because our society values corporate profit over human health.

Yes, they'll try to make us live in one world while living in a different one. And for a while, that might even seem true—but it's a lie.

The truth is, we all live in the same world.

It seems to me that when you create a world where human life has been made as cheap as possible, you will eventually find you live in a world where your human life is deemed by others to be cheap, too.

It seems to me that when you create a world that is deliberately callous about human life, you live in that world—which might be a problem, if you are a human.

Does all this sound like I'm advocating violence? I'm not. I'd like a peaceful society. I just happen to remember what exactly it is that fosters a peaceful society, and it's not respectable profitable machines that run on unimaginable cruelty and create widespread human suffering and tens of millions of desperate people.

Do I celebrate the murder of Brian Thompson? I do not. I'd like a world without murder. I also know how many people our healthcare system murders every year—murders, no matter what our halls of power and corridors of justice or platforms of influence say. And I know how most of us are close to falling victim to these respectably profitable human suffering machines, because we all have human bodies that will get sick and old over time, and most of us do not have vast wealth cocooning us.

Was the death of Brian Thompson a crime? It was. The question that's not being asked in the halls of power and corridors of justice and on the platforms of influence is, what type of crime was his life? I think you write your obituary in life, not at the point of your death. Some people make their lives into something that causes millions to mourn, and as a result of that, the end of their lives cause people some relief from that mourning, and relief rather naturally makes people celebrate. That's not something they're doing to the departed; it's something the departed did to all of them. When most people die, it is compassionate behavior to reflect on the departed’s life and send sympathy and support to the deceased’s loved ones, because this is how we honor our shared humanity. When some people die, it is compassionate behavior to reflect on the departed’s life and send sympathy and support to the deceased’s victims, not because we do not honor our shared humanity, but because we do. We remember the lives lost, and why they were lost. And we mourn, and we do not disparage those who mourn if they are not seemly in their mourning.

Do I think the reaction to this murder is unseemly? I don't think seemliness is our issue. I think cruelty and greed is our issue, whereby our society categorically rejects the notion of seemliness.

Do I agree with the TV and newspaper pundits that violence is never the answer? I would hope to be one who is not oriented toward violence. I wonder at those who only ask the question of the less powerful, who never apply the question to all the violence we accept as a part of regular daily operation of our status quo. I notice that violence very often is this answer, actually—as the exclusive property of the wealthy upon everyone else. The consternation seems to be saved not for the violence, but the reversal.

Don't I agree that we should seek peaceful solutions? I do. And there is a peaceful solution to the depredations caused by our cruel and inhuman privatized system, and that is to destroy the cruel system. Universal healthcare coverage is the peaceful solution here, so if someone is looking for peaceful solutions, point this out and see if “peaceful solutions” is what they really after, or if they just want sick people to die quietly while very nice human beings with loving families step over whatever dead body just hit the sidewalk on their way to the board meeting.

The peaceful solution to problems caused by our machines of human suffering is to completely dismantle our machines of human suffering, and to pay the cost of doing so. This isn't an ultimatum or a threat, it's simply stating the obvious, which is that engineering death and suffering and despair on a mass scale will never create conditions of peace, even if it will make a buck.

We'll find peaceful solutions once we align ourselves with a spirit of peace; once we determine that life is not something to be earned, once we reject our terrible foundational lies.

We need peaceful solutions to a great many problems, and I would certainly welcome anybody who wants to seek peace for all, rather than just the silence of victims on behalf of abusers.

We all live in the same world.

If we want to live in a peaceful and kind world, we must work to make one. The more power each of us has to shape the world, the greater the responsibility we bear for the world as its shaped.

If those of us with the power to make a peaceful world refuse to make one for others who are struggling to survive, how can we ever expect to live in a peaceful world ourselves?

Source: The Reframe

[MajGenl.Meade]

It is a valuable read. There is a huge gulf between the perceived worth of a human life based upon wealth and utility. Confusion and hypocrisy over the justifiable and the unjustifiable is not peculiar to the rich - it's possible to feel a vague sense of understanding for the men who caused these two deaths while also judging one case to be more (or less) heinous than the other. The victim as the cause is not a new argument nor is it necessarily incorrect.

And one cannot argue with the premise that healthcare is not properly provided in equitable fashion in the USA - and yet other apparently more egalitarian models present similar and in some cases worse problems. In no country do the wealthy face the failings of health care, whether nationalized or not.

The tone is rather hysterical. And I do question the seeming hyperbole in statements such as "all the millions of people—sick and desperate and often on the streets like Jordan Neely—who suffer and die every year because of the effects of extremely profitable and respectable human cruelty engines."

The US lost just over 3 million to death in 2023. The estimate for those dying without health insurance is 35 to 45 thousand. There seem to be no data on deaths as a result of refusal by insurers to pay for treatment.

I expect that the "millions of people" succumbing to "human cruelty engines" probably includes more than just medical shortfalls - perhaps counting pollution, home pricing and other societal factors that could be mitigated if anyone in power wished to take the trouble.

From my days hanging with Trots I recognize the utility of using big unprovable numbers when criticizing the ruling classes. Even so, 3 million total deaths from all causes in a population of 330 million does tend to negate the repeated use of Carl Sagan's second favorite word. (His first was "billions")

[Joe Guy]

I'm not consistent in my thinking. I believe Mangione is a murderer, not a hero but I also wouldn't be the least bit upset if he had shot Trump.

As a side note, I received notice in September that my healthcare insurance beginning 1/1/2025 will be changing to United Healthcare. The notice included that although my monthly premium will be almost tripled, the switch was made because the cost will be less than my current Aetna coverage premium increase would have been.

I've been putting it off, but I believe the time has come for me to reserve a plot or an urn.

[Sue U]

And now Jordan Neely's killer has been acquitted and Brian Thompson's (alleged) killer has been arrested. And so the wheel turns.

It is a valuable read. There is a huge gulf between the perceived worth of a human life based upon wealth and utility. Confusion and hypocrisy over the justifiable and the unjustifiable is not peculiar to the rich - it's possible to feel a vague sense of understanding for the men who caused these two deaths while also judging one case to be more (or less) heinous than the other. The victim as the cause is not a new argument nor is it necessarily incorrect.

I don't think the central thesis here is about blaming the victim, but "things that clearly demonstrate the core traditional spiritual belief of the United States that life must be earned, and making money is how you earn it, that clearly demonstrate the dominant belief that if you haven't earned life, then you are a question to which violence is often the answer." Thompson's killing is shocking and decried by the opinion-making moralizers because of who he was; Neely's killing is practically expected and justified by those same moralizers because of who he was. Yet any "threat" potentially posed by Neely was virtually non-existent especially compared to the actual harm done to millions (yes, millions) by the corporate human suffering engine headed by Thompson. It's a matter of framing and perspective, and the point here is to be conscious of whose interests the story is serving.

[Burning Petard]

Like the frog in the slowing warming pot, I look back and see things have drastically changed, but I can't see where or how it happened.

Back in the 1960's I briefly tried to sell cleaning equipment to hospitals in the Kansas City, Missouri area. Most of the hospitals were run by charity organizations. The only 'for profit' hospital was called Doctors Hospital and was owned and run by a consortium of Doctors. The rest were run by religious groups, adjuncts to Universities looking for basic research and charging lower fees than all the others., or even the local taxpayers.

Now they are ALL owned and operated by private corporations, and expected to turn a profit for their stockholders. Healing the sick is the means, not the goal.

snailgate.

[liberty]

I have stated my opinion on how to improve health care and make insurance cheaper in the past, so I've seen no need to go into that now.

However, as far as murder goes a killing is only murder if the death of the victim was intentional. Felony murder is a little different in that case the felony that resulted in someone dying must have been intentional. At one time, I believe there was a concept in law called criminal intent; is that still the case?

[BoSoxGal]

I have stated my opinion on how to improve health care and make insurance cheaper in the past, so I've seen no need to go into that now.

However, as far as murder goes a killing is only murder if the death of the victim was intentional. Felony murder is a little different in that case the felony that resulted in someone dying must have been intentional. At one time, I believe there was a concept in law called criminal intent; is that still the case?

There is a kind of 2nd degree murder - called depraved heart murder - which doesn’t require intent to kill, but only behavior that shows extreme disregard for human life which could result in death.

[Big RR]

The one thing I had a problem with is putting "universal healthcare" as the solution to the problems raised--it is not. Unless we had unlimited resources (which we do not), universal healthcare will not resolve the problems; we will still have some people left out of some treatments due to the resource limitation (so the 95 year old man will not get triple bypass surgery and the active alcoholic will not get a liver transplant, e.g.), but IMHO I think we could get a more equitable solution for all when decisions are made on the best use of the resources and not on a profit maximization, but there will still be disgruntled person who might try to exact the same revenge against those administering the system.

Likewise, universal healthcare would not necessarily benefit Mr. Neely, who appears to be suffering from some form of mental illness, unless he chose to seek treatment and follow the therapy. Some significant decisions will have to be made as to what we do with people who resist the treatment and/or if it can be imposed by force. Until we have those discussions, universal healthcare will not solve these problems.

So yes, universal healthcare would be an improvement; but a peaceful solution to the violence our society currently experiences? I don't think so.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't think the central thesis here is about blaming the victim

Oh, I agree. But it is a premise:

And ever since this killing, there have come from the halls of power and the corridors of justice and the platforms of influence a steady stream of explanations why Jordan Neely may have deserved what he got, or why the killing might not be such a tragedy, and why violence, while regrettable, is sometimes the answer, and why peaceful solutions, while desirable, are sometimes just not possible

It is premised by many NOT in the halls, corridors and platforms that Thompson and Neeley both "deserved" what they got. Again, blaming the victims. This argument does not work when men declare that provocatively dressed women "are asking for it" (nor should it, I hasten to add) altho' it does hold water when people off on holiday leave a house window open and forget to cancel the newspaper delivery (old school).

Especially perhaps it is premised by Mangione himself (speaking of Teddy "the Killer" K): “When all other forms of communication fail, violence is necessary to survive. You may not like his methods, but to see things from his perspective, it’s not terrorism, it’s war and revolution.” In other words, the target(s) are legitimate - it's their fault that violence is visited upon them - justifiable execution.

And this thinking (despite multiple fig-leaves of "I'm all for peace") is revealed by attentive reading of
A.R. Moxon's overwrought article (despite the agreed value of some of his/her/its points):

Do I agree with the TV and newspaper pundits that violence is never the answer? I would hope to be one who is not oriented toward violence. I wonder at those who only ask the question of the less powerful, who never apply the question to all the violence we accept as a part of regular daily operation of our status quo. I notice that violence very often is this answer, actually—as the exclusive property of the wealthy upon everyone else. The consternation seems to be saved not for the violence, but the reversal

Moxon claims that violence is the exclusive property of the wealthy. An argument can be made that Mangione had his place on the survival raft of white privilege and his violence is partly rejection of his past. But I think his back-pain had more to do with it plus an infatuation with extreme left/anarchic justification of terror, which is not at all restricted to the wealthy.

And I seek clarification on the "millions" who have suffered death at the hands of the capitalist machine - yes of course, over decades. But this essay seems to speak of millions every five minutes or perhaps a year whereas the maximum number of all deaths was 3,000,000+ in 2023 and (in fact) all people die, regardless of whether Trump backs coal or Musk is a wanker or medical insurance carriers deny coverage.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Can someone explain to me why his extradition from PA to NY - next door - should take 'several weeks?' He is of course innocent unless he is found guilty: but based on the reporting so far there seems to be adequate evidence for a trial.

[Big RR]

There are a number of issues that need to be resolved. first, he has committed some offenses in PA for which he can be tried; PA has to garee to defer this prosecution to permit NY to prosecute first; the appropriate sign offs need to be gotten. Secondly, as he ha not waived extradition, he is entitled to a hearing to assure that PA is confident that he will be treated legally and fairly before they hand him over; sometimes this is difficult where the laws of the two states are in conflict (such as when one state permits capital punishment and the other does not); right now he is in the custody of PA, and they have the interest in making sure this is the case, hence the hearing. My guess is his counsel is asking for some time to contest the extradition and have a hearing. He is in custody and isn't going anywhere, so it taking a bit of time to sort the issues out are not a major problem--especially in a case as prominent as this one.

BSG, perhaps you could expand on this.

[BoSoxGal]

You've got it basically correct.

I had a bunch of extraditions when I was prosecuting in Montana - people seemed to think Montana was a good place to hide out after they'd committed crimes elsewhere.

The majority of defendants waived and it was a very straightforward process, but if the defendant refuses to waive there must be a hearing and there also must be an extradition warrant signed by the governor of the extraditing state and provided to the governor of the state in which the defendant is held in custody, so of course that takes some time to procure. A few weeks is the standard. I've never seen a state refuse to extradite - and I'm not aware of any process by which a state without the death penalty can refuse to extradite to a state that has the death penalty, that happens when people are extradited from other countries (Canada comes to mind) that don't have the death penalty to American states that do - under international law there is room for that refusal. The extradition clause in the Constitution and federal law mandates the process and doesn't provide room for such positions on principle between US states.

Within the United States, federal law governs extradition from one state to another. The Extradition Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV Section 2) requires that:

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

18 U.S.C. § 3182 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 3182. Fugitives from State or Territory to State, District, or Territory
Current as of January 01, 2024 | Updated by FindLaw Staff

Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive authority making such demand, or the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. If no such agent appears within thirty days from the time of the arrest, the prisoner may be discharged.

I did have a couple of cases where the extraditing state dropped the ball and we had to let the person in custody go back on free roam. US Marshalls get pissed about that but it is what it is, the press of business in most prosecution offices is substantial and mistakes do get made. That won't happen in a high profile case like this, it's my understanding that prosecutors from NY travelled to PA within hours of Luigi's arrest to assist local LEOs in the process and to provide relevant paperwork.

[Big RR]

BSG--years ago I recall reading a book called I was a Fugitive from a Georgia Chain Gang who escaped a chain gang (twice as i recall) and was eventually apprehened in NJ which refused to extradite him (I think in the late 40s or 50s). After much discussion (and I think at least one failed attempt for Georgia to kidnap him he returned to Georgia in exchange for a sentence commutation from the governor, but apparently something forced Georgia to act.

I also recall a case a good while back where a state (at least initially) refused to extradite a minor who was sentenced to death (not sure if he was a minor at the time of the extradition or of sentencing); I don't recall the eventual outcome but it got some press at the time (I don't have the time to look it up, but I recall a number of court cases at the time (including soe brought by anti death penalty groups).

[BoSoxGal]

I saw this today while perusing the Facebook comments and watching Pope Francis's funeral mass - that's relevant for what I think are obvious reasons all around.

"Hail St Luigi of Righteous Vengeance, deliver us from greed."

And in the news this week the entry of not guilty plea by Luigi on federal charges, with the government's intent to seek the death penalty based on 'an act of political violence' entered into the record.

The mass murderers who shoot up churches and WalMarts and kill lots of brown people don't get the death penalty - those aren't acts of political violence or terrorism, apparently? - but Luigi kills one wealthy white CEO and let's fire up old Sparky.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It's the difference between a liberal administration and the current unliberal one?

[Big RR]

Just another reason to dump the death penalty in its entirety.