ARGUMENT: A KILLER, NOT A TERRORISTLuigi Mangione and the Making of a ‘Terrorist’
Discretion is crucial to the American tradition of criminal law, Jacob Ware and Ania Zolyniak write, noting that “lawmakers enact broader statutes to empower prosecutors to pursue justice while entrusting that they will stay within the confines of their authority and screen out the inevitable “absurd” cases that may arise.” Discretion is also vital to maintaining the legitimacy of the legal system. In the prosecution’s case against Luigi Mangione, they charge, “That discretion was abused.”
On 4 December 2024, Brian Thompson, then-CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was shot and killed on a New York City sidewalk. After a five-day manhunt, Pennsylvania authorities identified and arrested Luigi Mangione as the alleged culprit.
Jacob Ware and Ania Zolyniak write in Lawfare that s the killing drew extensive media coverage and attention, federal and state prosecutors swiftly announced their intent to charge the 26-year-old. New York moved first. On 17 December, the public learned that the Manhattan district attorney was pursuing charges of murder—as an act of terrorism.
Ware and Zolyniak write:
Terrorism is an elusive term. Its murkiness has been cited as a source—if not the source—of its susceptibility to abuse. Indeed, in bringing the charges, the district attorney appears to have seized upon the textual vacuousness of New York’s criminal terrorism provisions. These provisions impose the label of “terrorism” on certain specified offenses, including a Class A felony, committed “with intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.” The office has used this statutory language to describe the incident as “frightening” and “intended to cause shock and attention and intimidation,” teeing up an argument that Thompson’s killing was meant to “intimidate or coerce” a very specific “civilian population”: the health insurance industry.
The district attorney’s decision, however, pushes the limits of whatever lubrication “terrorism” and New York’s penal code can provide. Indeed, the announcement of the charge provoked public outrage and confusion. Considering terrorism’s slipperiness, the American public’s response reflects distrust in its application.
The shooting is an indubitably horrific act of violence. Even if, however, the naked letter of the law might permit such a prosecution, bringing terrorism charges against the facts of this case would not only run afoul of the logic animating the provisions but also compromise the utility of a state terrorism law—and potentially trigger dangerous unintended consequences.
They conclude that beyond being a questionable interpretation of the law, the terrorism charge against Mangione also poses dangers for legitimate terrorism prosecutions:
