To play Devil’s advocate, the bottom one was offered a plea deal.
That's kinda the point. Why wasn't Mangione offered a plea deal?
Also, why did the DOJ intervene and add the federal qualifier of "murder in furtherance of an act of terrorism" to Mangione's charges in order to put the death penalty on the table (NY state doesn't have the death penalty), but didn't add it to the charges of the guy who murdered 23 Hispanic people specifically to terrorize the Hispanic community?
A valid answer to my question could be "you're wrong, he was." I'm fully open to being wrong. The fact that nobody mentioned that he was is a strong indicator that he wasn't.
Plea deals are not unusual. It speeds up the process. Plus, not everyone approves of the death penalty, so a DA securing a plea deal by taking death off the table can even be favourable to some people.
I am against the death penalty. I am not in favor of the state executing someone accused of killing a rich person while pretending that keeping the White Supremacist alive is a nod to my ideology.
I'm pro-killing-shitty-people, but I don't trust our justice system to consistently and accurately determine guilt, and thus I must be against the death penalty as currently implemented.
I am against the death penalty full stop. There is no way for humans, let alone groups of humans, to implement kill people justly.
I'm just saying that executing people the government doesn't like while not doing so for right wing terrorists is neither a compromise nor a step in the right direction.
That comparison would be more valid if the Federal Government hadn't stepped in to add terrorism charges to Mangione's case in a state that doesn't have the death penalty.
They literally could be tried by the same people, except the federal government does not see killing 23 minorities as bad a crime as killing one rich white guy.