In what has to be one of the most racially charged cases in recent history, the DA in Philly has decided to give up on the death penalty for Mumia Abu Jamal. Jamal, who is black, was convicted 30 years ago of the murder of Daniel Faulkner, a white Philly cop. Jamal had been sentenced to death but the death penalty was overturned. The conviction was not. Jamal has no hope for parole.
While I believe that this was an appropriate death penalty case, I can understand the DA’s decision. Jamal’s supporters however, aren’t satisfied. The actually believe that he was framed. The Hollywood types, Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream and, seemingly, the whole of France see this piece of human garbage as some kind of hero. The evidence was overwhelming and anyone reading the actual record (and I have read substantial portions) could have no doubt as to his guilt. Most, if not all, of the arguments made by his supporters are factually incorrect. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory? They never have before.
I pretty much agree with his conclusions. Abu-Jamal is almost certainly guilty of a serious crime and deserves to be in prison. But his crime probably doesn’t rise to the current level of what constitutes a capital offense (or the 1981 level).
There’s a lot of goofy in Cecil’s article, but to his credit he seems to say he doesn’t buy all of it. The mysterious ‘fleeing murderer’ has zero evidence. I don’t know why Cecil even hints that Mumia’s brother might have done the deed - there is no shred of evidence for that, either.
I don’t know everyone acts as if bringing up Mumia’s politcal past was a big deal - he’s the one who brought it up in his statement during sentencing. In doing so he legally opened himself up to having his political comments scrutinized. If you go on the stand and say that violence is completely against your nature, the DA can bring up evidence they find to the contrary.
It works for me. I’m ethically opposed to the death penalty, but feel the only appropriate sentence for murder is life without the possibility of parole. I don’t care if they find religion, truly repent for their actions and devote their life to doing good works to make amends to society. That’s great, but they can do that from inside jail; repentance is between them and their god. They forfeited the right to ever breathe free air or live in free society ever again by committing murder. And Mumia is guilty as fuck.
That’s my question whenever I hear somebody argue that a murderer has been in prison long enough and should be released. Is the person they killed still dead? If the answer is yes, then they should still be in prison.
It’s funny: most of the people who believe that Mumia is not guilty of shooting a cop to death also believe that cops deserve to be shot to death. I wish they’d just admit that they love the guy because he killed a “pig,” and end the bullshit charade.
The case is only “racially charged” because certain black radical activists made it “racially charged.” Nothing about the case itself was “racial.” An armed criminal killed a cop. That’s it. But because of filthy racial racketeers, the guy was turned into a hero.
Fuck him. I hope a blood vessel bursts inside his brain and leaves him completely paralyzed, unable to communicate, in excruciating pain, for the remainder of his life.
It is a debatable point. I think you’re wrong. I think it’s hardly clear that the death penalty is wrong always and everywhere. I’d say that there are times when the death penalty is not only proper but morally necessary…that it’s an immoral thing at those times not to inflict the death penalty. That doesn’t mean the death penalty is right in all circumstances, or that there aren’t circumstances where it is wrong, but to say it’s always wrong is, in my mind, a foolish statement.
Actually, I would say the majority of pro-Mumia types aren’t even aware that there is a slain cop in the equation. Most of them have been told Mumia is a ‘political prisoner’ and they start wearing the shirts.
The hardcore ‘fans’, such as Ramona Africa pretty much do what you say - she’s constantly accusing the slain Daniel Faulkner all kinds of vile crap.
I am a bit confused. What makes this not a death penalty case, Nemo? I thought killing a peace officer was a death penalty offense in PA? Are there other circumstances that need to be shown in order for the death penalty to apply?
I guess my point is, if Abu-Jamal gets the death penalty taken off the table, isn’t the State (Commonwealth) arguing that he didn’t shoot Faulkner? And if he didn’t shoot Faulkner, then why the hell is he still in prison? I hate this sort of jurisprudential baby splitting. If he killed Faulkner—and the evidence personally convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt—then carry out the sentence already. If he didn’t kill Faulkner, then let him go.
As I understand it, the system in PA is geared extremely heavily towards defendants in the appeals process in death penalty cases to such an extent that a death sentence is pretty much a life sentence anyway. Now that might be a good thing if you hate the DP, or at least want to make sure all the t’s are crossed and i’s dotted. But the fact is, nobody is going to be executed in PA until several judges in prominent positions are changed.
PA re-instated the death penalty in 1976, and as you can see only three people were executed since then, all of them in the 90’s, and all of them waived their appeals process.
The DA could continue to seek the death penalty, but there was no way it would ever happen. Each time the case would come up (and it would come up again and again) Mumia’s name would be in the paper, his “Free Mumia” franchise business would get more business, and more stupid lefties like the California Teacher’s Federation would gush over him.
There’s absolutely no doubt that Mumia killed Faulkner, and if anyone deserves the death penalty it is a remorseless cop-killer. But at this point there is no way the execution is going to happen. So the DA settled for having the man spend the rest of his life in prison. If nothing else, it takes the anti-death penalty crowd out of the picture.
Why do you think that taking the (IMHO, wholly warranted) death penalty off the table equals the state arguing that Jamal didn’t kill Faulkner? I just don’t see the logic. The DA is merely being pragmatic.
That bit about Jamal being a speaker at a college graduation makes me sick. What could they possibly have been thinking? I think they named a street after him in France. It seems they take a shine to Americam murders. Did you ever hear of Ira Einhorn? Another infamous Philly killer with celebrity status over there. Alas, he too is living out the rest of his days in a Pennsylvania prison. After living openly in France for years (after being convicted of murder!) since they won’t extradite if the accused might face the death penalty. The DA had to promise to not seek it in order to get Einhorn home to face the music.
I don’t think a few “black radical activists” have that much power do they? It has to involve a willing group of radicals of all colors and levels of activity to buy into it.