Six days after Sept. 11, 2001, as New York City reeled from the worst terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, lawmakers in Albany passed sweeping antiterrorism laws. Prosecutors have used them infrequently. Last week, the Manhattan district attorney filed a terrorism charge against Luigi Mangione, a 26-year-old man accused of killing a health insurance executive, classifying the crime as an attack on democracy. Prosecutors’ decision to characterize the killing of the UnitedHealthcare chief executive, Brian Thompson, as a political act will test the law. It will have implications beyond the courtroom, says the New York Times. The defendant, who carried a handwritten paper decrying the health care system, has been cast as a martyr by some people sympathetic to his apparent philosophy. The charges could strengthen that perception. Some have criticized what they see as a judgment by the authorities that the killing of a wealthy executive is more important than the deaths of the anonymous poor. Terrorism could be a more difficult charge to prove than second-degree murder. Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, has argued that the terrorism charge is warranted because the gunman’s action was meant to do more than kill Thompson; it was meant to send a message to the public. Mangione, he said, intended to “sow fear.” “This type of premeditated, targeted gun violence cannot and will not be tolerated,” Bragg.
Zachary Carter, former U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn, said that based on what has been made public about Thompson’s killing, it “fits the definition of terrorism.” New York’s terrorism laws allow for stiffer sentences for certain offenses and can be applied in a variety of circumstances. For a crime to be considered terrorism, the government must prove that the perpetrator intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a unit of government or affect the conduct of a unit of government. Prosecutors can use criminal charges both as a means to punish people for what they have done and as a way to deter other people from similar acts, said Michael Bachner, a defense lawyer and former prosecutor in the Manhattan DA's office. In the case of Mangione, he said, prosecutors most likely wanted to send a message to “anyone thinking that they can try and change policy, whether in the government or corporate policy, by killing people.” Applying terrorism charges to a case in which prosecutors believe the broader target was one industry, rather than the government or the public at large, is unusual. James McGuire, a former New York prosecutor who also was an appellate judge, noted that the law describes a defendant’s intent to terrorize “a civilian population” or influence the government. “It’s hard to conclude that the Legislature intended the phrase ‘civilian population’ to encompass persons working for health insurers who make coverage decisions,” McGuire said.