I can’t find a cite but many years ago I saw a documentary on television about Vietnam Era radicals who had committed and been convicted of various federal felonies. While at the time in the USA there were no strictly political crimes like “terrorism” and the Supreme Court had temporarily stopped capital punishment, the documentary made it clear that the federal government had lost no opportunity to jump on these convicts with hobnailed boots: not only maximum sentences but the hardest of hard time, what would later be termed supermax confinement.
Incarceration itself is violence. The entire justice system is predicated on violence. Even a simple fine is backed up by a threat of violence if you don’t comply. Any action the state takes to deprive someone of their freedom is violent.
We’re not sure, so we will have a trial and the government will have to prove their case.
It may be worth remembering that – because there is no ‘standalone’ Federal charge of “Domestic Terrorism --” accused criminals are charged with the specific crimes that they are alleged to have committed.
In the Mangione case, I detailed those charges above.
That position devalues violence and turns it into something insignificant. If all of human civilization is inherently violent - which that position defines it as - then violence becomes a good thing.
Violence isn’t always “bad” in the context of right and wrong. Throwing someone into a cage against their will is an act of violence whether it’s the state doing it or a private individual. The difference is one is sanctioned and the other is not. Sometimes violence is good in that it is morally correct.
The seems to erode the distinction between compulsion or coercion on the one hand and violence on the other. It is true that the force of the state is ultimately backed by physical violence, but I really don’t think it’s an act of violence to compel me to show up for jury duty.
Yeah. It’s ultimately “backed by violence” because that’s true of all law and most social rules; otherwise there are people who would simply ignore them and run roughshod over the rest of us. But that doesn’t make it violent in itself.
- A study by the Washington Post found that in half of the homicide cases examined, an arrest was made within 10 days or fewer.
** Some cases are solved almost immediately, with the suspect being found at the scene and confessing or being readily identifiable* That is an AI answer, but they had a description of Mangione right off the bat- the killing was in broad daylight, right in the open, and witnesses by several CCTV, not to mention witnesses. They had plenty of good images of Mangione. Rarely do the police get that lucky.
Right.
So, it wasnt unusual he got caught, he wasnt trying hard to conceal the skilling.
It is a bit different when the killing is in a dark alley with no witnesses, not CCTV, no shell casings, etc.
IIRC, that was in oroville CA, and it was certainly on the news here in CA- However, no manhunt as the shooter killed himself on the spot. Also the children survived. So, no child deaths, no manhunt, less news.
So they are picking the low hanging fruit. They are closing the easy cases.
46% of murders go unsolved. So, half of 54% is 27%. Out of 25,000 murders last year that is 6,750. How many of those were completely obvious cases? (I’d bet a lot)
Witnesses? “I saw a guy!” There are 175 million(ish) guys in the US. How would they peg one guy?
Cameras…great. Why aren’t the police carefully going over every camera in every murder case?
It is clear the police were much, much, much more invested in catching this guy than Joe Gangbanger.
Because the USA’s criminal justice system is so over-saturated that there literally aren’t prosecutors and courts enough in the land to indict and try them all. The system is reduced to using a bribe/threat strategy to compel as many plea deals as possible.
I agree. But with this guy he got all the resources thrown towards finding his murderer.
Really, the entire “justice” system is based on feudalism. Incarceration was a way of dealing with people who made the peerage unhappy and has basically no place in a society that is trying to stabilize itself. The whole criminal justice system is an obsolete farce.
It’s probably best in another thread, but I’d be genuinely interested in what you might do with murderers, rapist, thieves, and people who don’t return library books on time.
Actually incarceration was an improvement on feudalism, which previously had people flogged for minor infractions and mutilated or killed for anything major. The idea that a stint in the “penitentiary” might encourage personal reform was bleeding-heart liberalism back in the day.
nevermind
The guy who killed 23 people in a bigotry-fueled murder spree sure seemed to be making a political point. Feds didn’t bother to seek the death penalty there…dunno why.
He was doing the government’s work for it, they don’t want to punish him too harshly and discourage imitators.
That was not terrorism, it was a a hate crime.
Those aren’t incompatible in the slightest; terrorism is often also a hate crime.