Einhorn wasn’t living openly, he was actually living under an assumed name.
France was particularly hypocritical in the Einhorn case - they bitched and moaned about how it wasn’t fair to do trials in absentia (even though that was Einhorn’s fault for skipping town) just two years after France had convicted some terrorists in absentia.
After re-reading the 3rd Circuit opinions in 2008 and 2011, I see what happened. The District Court’s and the 3rd Circuit CoA’s issue weren’t with Abu-Jamal’s guilt or innocence—that stands----they were with his verdict form and sentencing jury instructions. And having read the verdict form and sentencing instructions at pages 69-72 of the 2008 opinion, (or 12-15 in the 2011 opinion, but what fun would that be?) I can see why the 3rd had misgivings, in light of Mills v. Maryland. Makes me want to to go look up the language Texas uses for their death penalty sentencing instructions and see if there are model death penalty jury instructions for sentencing floating around.
I still think PA would have won at the Supreme Court; I thought the SCOTUS vacating the 3rd’s opinion and ordering them to reconsider in light of Spisak was crystal clear as to the Court’s intent, but I can see PA and Philly just saying enough with the circus and the cost already.
Good decision. Because all you have is your opinion.
I agree. Though a lethal injection, or a firing squad, or a guillotine would have been nice…25 years ago.
Excellent post, though.
Well there’s the matter of how much it costs to house this piece of shit for say…25 years.
He could live for another 50 years and probably wouldn’t cost as much as a single re-do of the sentencing trial.
It’s tempting to ask for a cite, but since I’m sure there isn’t one, so I will settle for pointing out that this is ridiculous. I think it’s unlikely he didn’t do it, and I’ll grant you that there are some uninformed people on his side (and a small number of nuts). You don’t have to be crazy cop-murderin’ hippie to think some things were some serious problems with the guy’s trial. For the record, I’m against the death penalty regardless.
I heard about the commuting of the sentence. To me, the most surprising thing was one of my friends (a self described conservative) coming out as against the death penalty.
As far as Mumia was concerned, it was clear to everybody who had done some reading that regardless of guilt he wasn’t ever going to be executed.
Maybe I should stay my tongue on this -as I said I’m anti-death penalty, convinced of Mumia’s guilt and think life without parole is the appropriate sentence for a conviction for murder - but the bolded bit is a pragmatic rather than ethical reason I’m opposed to the death penalty. In some states such as New York and Texas, first degree murder involves “special circumstances,” such as the murder of a police officer or witness to a crime, multiple murders, or murders involving torture which in effect makes some lives worth more than others. Why is life of the victim of premeditated murder worth less because they happen to be for example the young mother of two infants or just Joe Unlucky working at a convenience store rather than a police officer? In Texas and until the death penalty was struck down in NY only the murderer of the police officer would face death, the murderers of the young mother and Joe Unlucky the cashier (who is still someone’s son or daughter) would only face a prison term.
A statement from Pam Africa, a leader of the ‘Free Mumia’ organization to a crowd at a rally:
But this is fairly typical of the hardcore rhetoric - Mumia didn’t do it - and Faulkner deserved it. Reminds me of that musical number in Chicago.
The point I was disputing was “most people…” That’s also why I said I don’t really expect a cite- I’m sure none exists. I realize Argent Towers addressed only people who think Abu-Jamal is innocent, but the claim he made does more to cast aspersions on people who have problems with this guy’s trial than it does to enlighten anybody about what’s going on.
I can understand you grief with this concept. But look at it this way. Its not that the person that happens to be a policeman is more valuable as a person. Its the position itself. If killing policemen or judges or even lets say lawyers (all of who criminals have extra incentive to kill), is a extra big no no then criminals(in theory at least) will be less inclined to kill them (which is good for the legal system and society in general).
A reverse scenario would be a cop/lawyer/judge taking a bribe or doing something seriously illegal. We often throw the book at them for that sorta shit. And for the same sorta reasons we go after cop killers. Their social position is very important. Who actually happens to be in that position at that point is kinda beside the point.
If I go out and ACCIDENTALLY kill a person, yeah it shouldn’t (and probably really won’t) make a difference if its Joe the plumber vs Joe the cop. But yeah, if I kill a cop just because he is a cop or a cop performing his duties…yeah IMO you should be in deep shit.
I can see the pragmatic side. PA’s death penalty is a joke. Even if they held a new sentencing hearing, and he got the death penalty, again, it would be another 20 years before an execution date would be set.
Jamal would die of old age before the needle.
I’m in favor of the death penalty in theory but it takes a great deal of evidence (IMO) to meet the test. Mumia Abu Jamal meets the highest standard I’ve ever seen in a case. It’s not to say that he couldn’t be defended under an insanity plea or crime of passion but as far as killing Officer Faulkner, he is guilty of the act.
I understand the logic behind it, I just don’t agree with it. There isn’t a separate category for a cop/lawyer/judge performing an illegal activity that carries a higher penalty than the same crime committed by Joe Average. There may be less willingness to be lenient and charge them with the greatest crime possible rather than a lesser offence but there isn’t a separate crime that only they can commit. Accidentally killing someone is manslaughter, not murder. I just feel that if I decide to kill your mother and steal her car or decide I’m going to kill a police officer as he come up to my window during a traffic stop, the crime and the penalty should be the same.
On the other hand, a life sentence in PA means life. There is no life with the possibility of parole in PA, all life sentences are without the possibility of parole.
According to an anti-Death Penalty activist who became friends with Mumia Abu-Jamal, visiting him in prison over a period of several years, MAJ actually admitted killing Officer Faulkner in a candid moment, saying that he did regret it.
He is clearly guilty, and should never be considered as an oppressed innocent victim, and people like Ed Asner, Mike Farrell and other celebrities who lionize Mumia are clueless assholes.
I missed mentioning this a couple of days ago, but on the 30th anniversary of Faulkner’s execution a bunch of Mumiatards got together. Of course they referred to it as the 30th anniversary of Mumia being arrested. That it, guys, try to avoid mentioning that there was slain cop in the story. Stay classy.
Here in Philly, we call them “Mumidiots”
I am in Philly.