My reaction to the editors’ of the Washington Post’s complaint about “Luigi Mangione copycats” was that, if a legal system were specifically designed not to deter would-be criminals, it could not achieve that objective much better than our present system.
To act as a deterrent a criminal justice system must be timely and sure not severe. Ours fails on all counts. In many jurisdictions, clearance rates for serious crimes remain low, and repeat arrests before adjudication are common. In practice many criminals are either never arrested or arrested and released dozens or even hundreds of times without ever being tried much less convicted. According to Pew Research only 2% of federal criminal defendants go to trial and most have been arrested before. Once arrested weeks, months, or even years may elapse before a trial and, even if a conviction results, the crime may have been pled down to something much more minor than the original charge.
There are modern systems, Japan’s for example, where the probability of apprehension and resolution is high, and that appears to have deterrent effects. The point isn’t to import their system wholesale but to note what they get right: certainty.
Luigi Mangione was arrested in December 2024. He should have been tried and, if the evidence against him supported it, convicted more than a year ago. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees a right to a speedy trial. That should cut both ways. Neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys should be able to prolong the process indefinitely.
I agree wholeheartedly. The delays can be serious issues for the guilty or the innocent. For the guilty, they are often released to commit crime again creating new victims. For the innocent, some are held a long time awaiting their day in court. This happened to a Tennessee woman who was held because an AI facial recognition program incorrectly identified her. The police in Fargo, North Dakota, issued an extradition warrant. She spent about six months in jail awaiting extradition. She was finally moved to Fargo where she was released after a few hours. This was the first time she had ever been to North Dakota.
https://www.wsmv.com/2026/03/31/east-tn-grandmother-mistakenly-jailed-months-after-ai-identified-her-bank-fraud-suspect-north-dakota/
How do we fix it? Is it just adding more courts to process everyone faster?
I’m afraid it’s more complicated than that. Delay is a time-hallowed defense tactic. Keep delaying until the prosecution tires and plea bargains.
And it racks up billable hours even for court appointed attorneys. A wave of judicial Fr. Flanagan’s won’t solve it either
The right to a speedy trial is for the defendant.
I suspect to speed trials along we need a lot more judges; and judges are fairly reluctant to support that; while creating judges is a recipe for political warfare.
We also would need reforms in how pre-trial motions and discovery is done.
The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 established a “clock” for trials for precisely the reasons I suggest. I consider its not being followed consistently a judicial abuse.
A quick and certain resolution is one of the few things shown to decrease crime. (Most of the time it goes up and down and we dont know why but we are quick to blame stuff/people we dont like or take credit when not due.) Some quick searches with Chat-GPT and other sites suggest that delays are not dominated by defense actions, that court conflicts and protection request for more time to find evidence/witnesses is also prevalent. On the prosecution/governmnet side of the issue I know some places (Australia?) have officers assigned to each case and if the govt lags they can cancel the charges.
I dont know if there is much we can do on the defense side. Maybe cancel bail if it exists?
Steve
The Speedy Trial Act mentioned above has such provisions.
Curious gets the most important point. The right to a speedy trial is the defendant’s, and it’s the least asserted right because delay may work to the accused’s advantage. Statutory speedy trial laws generally operate by imposing a trial deadline with provisions for periods in which the clock is not running. The clock generally doesn’t run when any delay is not solely the responsibility of the prosecution.
Here, it looks like Defense counsel repeatedly has moved for continuances (often jointly with Prosecution) in order to have sufficient time to prepare for trial, and Judges have found it in the interest of justice to do so. Defense counsel identifies issues with litigating in three forums at the same time. Defense counsel also filed motions which successfully dismissed significant charges (terrorism in state court and death penalty in federal court), which almost certainly were reviewed with the clock stopped.
I don’t think judges are the primary delay point. They are not preparing for trial; they may be receiving motions, but they have a lot of leeway to reserve ruling until time for trial. If anything, too many legal issues are addressed after trial. Whether or not Bill Cosby could be tried was resolved years after sentencing.