Luigi Mangione: Innocent until proven guilty
How the media influence the possibility of a fair trial
First introduced in Roman law, the maxim of ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ has evolved throughout centuries into one of the core legal principles in many jurisdictions. The United Nations acknowledges it as an international human right in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the American legal system the presumption of innocence was established in 1895 in the landmark case Coffin v. United States. Nowadays, no legal drama is imaginable without it, and yet, when it comes to real life, this principle ceases to function.
In the past few weeks the world has been infatuated with the case of Luigi Mangione, a 26-year old man, accused of killing the CEO of UnitedHealthcare Brian Thompson. The case is truly remarkable due to its polarizing effect on the public. It highlighted long-festering social and economic issues, prompting some people to express positive reactions — much to the dismay of the authorities, which, in turn, decided to take control of the narrative. This controversial reaction was quickly reflected in the news coverage provided by media outlets and some independent authors. And this is where the desire to match the official rhetoric took precedence over the reporter’s sacred duty to be impartial.
The degree to which this phenomenon manifests itself varies from blatant audacity to subtle manipulation of public opinion.
In more explicit cases, the media brand Mr. Mangione a "killer”, "assassin”, and "murderer”, or attribute the elements of the crime to him, effectively convicting him in the court of public opinion. Maximillian Meyer in his opinion piece for the New York Post says “…that found young voters evenly divided on the righteousness of Luigi Mangione’s cold-blooded assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.” Amanda Castro and Hannah Parry of the Newsweek write “And now prosecutors have charged the shooter, Luigi Mangione, with terrorism.”
Another case of the media's erosion of Luigi Mangione’s presumption of innocence is evident in the decreased use of "alleged" or "suspected" — instead of explicitly stating that Mr. Mangione’s guilt hasn’t been established in court, the media outlets relying solely on quotation marks to signal uncertainty. The U.S. Edition of The Sun entitled one of their articles “'KILLER' SMIRK CEO ‘assassin’ Luigi Mangione SMILES as he pleads not guilty…”. Chief U.S. reporter for the Daily Mail Germania Rodriguez Poleo used the title “CEO 'killer' Luigi Mangione reveals dramatic new look…”. While the body of the articles contains the word “alleged”, the prominence of headlines, bolded and larger than the body text, can overshadow this effect. For readers who skim, these titles become the primary source of information, potentially shaping their perception before they even engage with the full story.
The third, and the most serious case, that is violating Luigi Mangione’s right to a fair trial, is the general narrative. The mass media’s vocabulary choice significantly impacts public perception. In some cases, phrasing goes beyond reporting facts, and reflects the reporter’s personal attitude, undermining the integrity of the information presented. For example, the use of emotionally and stylistically colored vocabulary in the New York Post’s titles “Luigi Mangione oddly wears matching outfit with his lawyer in NYC court hearing — to his sick fans' delight” and “Grinning Luigi Mangione yuks it up in court as he enters plea in execution of UnitedHealthcare boss”, The Daily Mail’s “After the 'hot assassin' Luigi Mangione debuted a new look behind bars…” portrays Mr. Mangione as a frivolous and superficial person, thus influencing the reader’s perception of him. Many outlets have referred to Mr. Mangione as an “Ex-Ivy League student” while technically he is an Ivy League graduate — a person who has successfully completed a course or a degree — which downplays Mr. Mangione’s achievements.
The linguistic component is not the only one affecting Mr. Mangione’s image to his potential jurors and general public. The constant use of photographs depicting him handcuffed, shackled and surrounded by a large group of armed law enforcement officers evokes the sense of danger and creates an association with the image of a convicted felon in the public’s minds.
The presumption of innocence is an inalienable right of every human being. It recognizes the inherent dignity and worth of every person and fosters trust in the legal system. In the age of information, impartial media coverage of sensitive topics like trials is crucial, because before the case reaches a judge, it goes to the court of public opinion. And it’s essential for the civilized society to remember that behind every trial there is a human being, vulnerable and deserving of compassion, just like any one of us.
.