Luigi Mangione and the Price He Pays for Entertaining Us
When justice becomes entertainment and spectacle demands a sacrifice
We all know the story, but let’s revisit it: Luigi Mangione, a 26-year-old man, stands accused of killing the CEO of a health insurance company on December 4, 2024. The unusual nature of this event is matched by an equally atypical profile, which we will not discuss until due process unfolds.
This case is not only relevant due to its unusual nature, but also because of how it has been exploited to feed the machinery of media spectacle. Beyond the facts, the public narrative has been shaped by speculation and testimonies of questionable credibility, creating a blurred line between truth and fiction.
This article aims to analyze the different dimensions of the case, addressing the significant amount of content that has been generated but, in our opinion, does not fully meet the necessary standards.
The construction of the narrative
In just two months, we have witnessed how, at record speed, multiple documentaries have been produced and released about Luigi Mangione, a young man who has been accused of murder and is currently in preventive detention awaiting trial.
Are we surprised? Probably not, because this predatory attitude has defined the modus operandi of mass media for years. However, what should deeply concern us is the constant violation of one of the fundamental pillars of procedural law: the presumption of innocence. Before the trial has even taken place, narratives have already been manufactured, and public judgments have been made, distorting the perception of the case.
This media construction relies heavily on the appearance of ‘witnesses’ whose connection to Mangione is, at best, tangential. Individuals who exchanged a few messages with him or saw him briefly on video calls appear on screen claiming they knew him, offering subjective and often contradictory accounts. These individuals are not seeking the truth because the truth can only be determined, if at all, through the trial. Their main goal seems to be to gain relevance in the prevailing narrative and, in some cases, to monetize their participation in the public story.
Of particular concern is the fact that many of these individuals have minimal connection to the case, yet they present themselves as witnesses to Mangione's personality. In reality, they’ve exchanged a handful of words with him. These individuals are selling their access to the highest bidder, often for a nominal fee and a few minutes of attention in a documentary that will likely fade from public memory within months. Their role in the media landscape is that of pawns, easily used and discarded by the media machine. However, their irresponsibility has real-world consequences, including the distortion of facts, the reinforcement of sensationalist narratives, and the dehumanization of an accused person who, it should be recalled, has not yet been judged.
The impact of this phenomenon extends beyond the construction of a distorted image of the accused; it directly affects the right to a fair trial. The overload of information, often speculative or biased, can influence the jury’s perception, create pressure on both the prosecution and defense, and even influence legal strategies depending on how the media presents the case.
The business of true crime thrives on this morbid fascination with crime. The transformation of legal cases into entertainment generates significant revenue through audience reach and financial profit. Documentaries, podcasts, and articles appear in rapid succession with a clear goal: to exploit tragedy in real time without waiting for the legal process to do its job. This practice of sensationalizing crime extends beyond the media to individuals who present themselves as witnesses, despite lacking professional expertise in the subject matter. Those who appear in the documentaries do not contribute relevant information but serve as narrative tools that add drama and fictional credibility to the story being constructed. And worst of all, they do it knowingly. They are not victims of a ruthless system but active participants in its degradation.
A demonstration of institutional power: Bolstering the narrative
The way his arrest and extradition were handled reinforces this perception. A notable illustration of the state's exercise of authority was the perp walk that followed the extradition, in which the suspect was surrounded by police officers equipped with assault rifles. This display of force appeared disproportionate, considering the individual had no history of violence or a problematic profile, and there was no evidence he posed an imminent threat to the public.
The use of the perp walk as a media tool is not new. In the U.S. criminal justice system, this practice has historically been used to reinforce narratives of guilt even before a defendant has been tried. The visual representation of an individual in handcuffs, surrounded by a substantial police presence, fosters a perception of dangerousness that influences public opinion and shapes how the case is perceived.
In Mangione's case, this theatricalization takes on particular significance when considering the nature of the crime he is accused of and his profile. The level of force employed during the perp walk suggests that the authorities were not only seeking to ensure his detention but also to send a message. The use of agents armed with assault rifles, typically reserved for high-risk situations like capturing terrorists or violent criminals, is more symbolic than operational. It's noteworthy that Mangione was neither a fugitive with a history of multiple murders nor an armed and dangerous individual at the time of his arrest. Nevertheless, the state chose to portray him as such.
This type of staging serves several functions. First, it aims to consolidate the image of control by the authorities. In a context where crime and justice are central topics in public debate, these types of demonstrations serve to reinforce confidence in institutions and project the idea that the system is relentless with those who commit crimes, especially if they have generated significant media repercussions.
Second, this excessive force also carries a punitive component. By treating someone like Mangione—educated, with no criminal record, and with an atypical profile among homicide suspects—with the same level of force used for a dangerous criminal, the state seeks to send a clear message: no one who challenges the status quo is above the system, regardless of their status or background. This practice serves as a public display of authority, reinforcing the power of the judicial and police systems and maintaining the status quo.
Moreover, this type of media spectacle can influence the development of the trial. The portrayal of an accused individual subjected to an excessive display of force can shape the public's perception of their dangerousness, potentially influencing the jury's decision and the outcome of the case. While the U.S. judicial system is theoretically based on the presumption of innocence, in practice, these spectacles erode that presumption and reinforce the idea that the accused has already been convicted in the court of public opinion.
Social implications of supporting Luigi Mangione
One of the most striking aspects of the case has been the substantial online support Mangione has received, with donations reaching $300,000 for his legal defense through a GiveSendGo campaign. However, the press has sensationalized this phenomenon, using terms such as “sick donors” or “fans”, distorting the nature of these contributions and oversimplifying a complex phenomenon.
The reality of the situation is that this support cannot be reduced to a matter of hybristophilia or morbid fascination. For many, the narrative surrounding the case has generated a perception of procedural injustice or disproportionate media treatment. Additionally, the sociopolitical context surrounding the crime has played a key role in how many people perceive the case.
Mangione stands accused of murdering a CEO of a health insurance company, an industry synonymous in the U.S. with exclusion, relentless bureaucracy, and, in many cases, human suffering. The healthcare system in the U.S. is a multi-billion-dollar business based on privatization and risk management, meaning that insurers have the power to decide which treatments are covered and which are not, often with devastating consequences for patients. The consequences of denials of coverage, exorbitant drug prices, and families facing financial bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills are a reality for many in the U.S.
In this context, it is not surprising that Mangione's case has garnered significant support from sectors that have been victims of this system. For many, his accusation is inevitably linked to a widespread resentment toward insurers, seen as institutions that prioritize profits over human life. His alleged act, regardless of guilt or innocence, has been interpreted by some as an extreme manifestation of collective frustration with a system that has failed millions of citizens.
On the other hand, there is a second group of people who firmly believe in his innocence and consider that he has been unjustly framed. Due to the erosion of credibility that certain state institucions are experiencieng, the lack of clear information, the speed with which narratives have been constructed in the media, and the use of his personal history to fabricate a criminal profile have created a perception of arbitrariness in the process. From this perspective, raising funds for his legal defense is not just an act of support but a form of resistance against what is perceived as a judicial and media machine predisposed against him.
Conclusion
The case of Luigi Mangione transcends its strictly judicial dimension to become a mirror of the current tensions between justice, media, and social perception. The sensationalization of the process, with rushed documentaries and manipulated narratives, not only jeopardizes the right to a fair trial but also reflects a perverse dynamic where crime becomes a mass consumption product.
The theatricalization of punishment by the state, evidenced in his perp walk, underscores how the judicial system not only seeks to dispense justice but also to project power and control through carefully calculated images. In this context, it is troubling how the media and state institutions seem to negatively reinforce each other: the former amplify narratives that benefit spectacle, while the latter take advantage to strengthen their image as implacable authorities.
The social support for Mangione also highlights a fracture in trust toward institutions such as health insurers, turning his figure into a symbol of resistance for some sectors.
This case raises disturbing questions: To what extent should the media inform without becoming mediatic judges? What are the implications of the theatricalization of justice for fundamental rights? And above all, what does this case say about us as a society?
Beyond Mangione's guilt or innocence, what is at stake is the preservation of a judicial system based on fairness, truth, and due process. As a society, we must reflect on the role we play in this narrative, demanding not just justice but also accountability in how stories of crime and punishment are constructed and consumed.
Please, be careful with symbols that have not self-proclaimed their status, because they are the ones who pay the final price.
And it’s a very high one.
Note: For a more comprehensive understanding of punishment as spectacle, refer to this article.
If you find value in this, please share it. Building a critical and informed community is essential to challenging mainstream narratives and truly grasping what’s at stake. Also, feel free to check out our other posts—each one adds a piece to the bigger picture.
Great breakdown. They are grasping at straws. They haven’t been able to dig up any dirt on this guy and that speaks volumes.