Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of murdering a
police officer in
Philadelphia.
The case has been very confused on both sides. On the pro-death side, people say "officer Faulkner is dead! think of his family!", and things like that. Killing anyone, especially an innocent man, will do nothing to bring back officer Faulkner. On the anti-death side the issue of Mumia's case is thoroughly confused by people who are against the death penalty in general, even if Mumia is guilty. Neither of these arguments are relevant to the real issue.
The real issue is whether Mumia received a fair trial. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that even if Mumia is guilty, the trial was not fair. If Mumia is guilty (which I admit, is fairly likely), then a re-trial will prove that once and for all. Both sides will be happy - Mumia will receive a fair trial, be found guilty, and be put to death. However until he is truly proven guilty in a fair trial, there is a chance an innocent man is being put to death because a police officer died and his colleagues want someone, anyone, to die for it.
Racism is a large factor in the case. There were only two blacks on the jury, in a city which is 40% black.
Philadelphia has a history of racism, combined with a history of police misconduct including brutality and framing.
Mumia did not receive adequate legal counsel, especially for a capital murder case. He was represented by an inexperienced lawyer who claimed his
own incompetence in the trial.
Judge Sabo consistently made rulings to prevent the defense from entering any
evidence or
witnesses to support their side. For instance
ballistics testing that showed the bullets in Faulker were not from Mumia's gun. This evidence was rejected.
Four witnesses who attempted to testify that they were
coerced and
threatened by police into testifying against Mumia had their testimony stricken or were prevented from testifying. Witnesses with criminal records had been threatened with jail time if if they didn't testify against Mumia. One witness had current charges dropped when he testified against Mumia. Other witnesses had initial testimony entered against Mumia, and later conflicting testimony stricken on the basis that the witness was "a prostitute on marijuana". What? An unreliable witness can testify
against the defendant, but not
for him? This makes no sense. If anything,
all of the witness' testimony should have been stricken, not half of it.
The police didn't test Mumia's hands for evidence of firing a gun(which is routine), nor was his gun checked to see if it had been recently fired.
The shots themselves don't match up. Supposedly Mumia shot officer Faulker in the back. How then did Faulkner shoot Mumia clear in the chest? It isn't likely that a dying police officer shot by surprise in the back could pull his gun and shoot so accurately.
Police claimed that Mumia
confessed to the crime, and lacking other hard evidence, his guilty verdict depended on this "
confession". Mumia says he never confessed. More importantly, the police records agreed with him. There is no record in the hospital/police logs of such a confession. One police officer even had specifically noted
"We stayed with the male at Jefferson until we were relieved. During this time, the Negro male made no comments".
Police made conflicting reports on whether he confessed or not, then later changed their stories to match up. Why would an officer lie to say Mumia
didn't confess, after a fellow officer was shot? A police officer who originally claimed Mumia never confessed took a convenient
vacation to avoid testifying at Mumia's trial. Judge Sabo allowed this ridiculous circumvention of the truth.
Is it
silly to suggest that Mumia was framed?
No.
The police assumed Mumia's guilt from the instant they arrived at the scene of the crime, where they found Mumia awaiting their arrival. Mumia had ample time to flee, but instead waited at the scene of the crime.
It seems that even the prosecution against Mumia admits that Faulkner was senselessly beating Mumia's brother when Mumia arrived at the scene. What a great cop, pulling that bad man over for a
DWB(Driving While Black) and beating him for fun.
What was the first thing the backup police did when they got there? They found Mumia
shot in the stomach, sitting at the curb, and beat him. They beat him severely, and then beat him more at the hospital.
The police claimed they "accidentally ran him into a pole"? What
the fuck is that? How do you accidentally slam someone into a pole? "Oh, sorry judge, Mumia just
fell down the basement steps a few times on the way to and at the hospital." Mumia had been badly injured, and waited peacefully for medical attention. The police arrived, and outraged at their fellow officer's death,
beat Mumia and framed him for murder.
The theories and witnesses claiming police
coersion to produce false testimony against Mumia isn't a surprising thing--not with the
Philidelphia police, and
especially not when a white officer was "shot" by a
black man.
In case you didn't already know about the notoriously corrupt
Philidelphia police department, here are some statistics:
Think about that. Those are just the cases where the police were caught in the act. 75 people were almost
murdered by our government for crimes they did not commit. The only reason they weren't killed was DNA testing. Think of all the people who have been put to death who didn't happen to have any
DNA evidence in their favor. Innocent people. Someone just like you.
Think about the 1500 cases of possible
police misconduct and
framing. Think about how nothing makes sense in the Mumia Abu-Jamal case. Should we really
fry his ass just because a
police officer died and the police
lynch mob wants someone to die for it?
Who would it hurt to give him a new trial, with a new
judge, who might perhaps let the
defense admit evidence and witnesses? Some make claims like "it's already hard enough on Faulkner's widowed wife, we need to stop prolonging her
misery and just kill Mumia." Let's get this straight: her husband is
DEAD. Killing an
innocent man will not bring him back to life. Even killing a
guilty man without giving him a
fair trial will not bring Faulkner back to life. It will only pervert our justice system.
I originally started looking at Mumia's case thinking it was a lot of BS. I believe
capital punishment is reasonable. That belief however relies on the person being executed actually having been proven guilty. I haven't heard decent explanations for the above problems in Mumia's case. Most(not all!) people I hear speak out against Mumia are
anti-activists who haven't researched the case, and assume if a black man is accused of murdering a police officer, he's probably guilty.
It is far easier to kill a man than to ensure he receives a fair trial. I'd like to believe in America we make the effort for the latter.
A few links:
http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/mumia/guilty.html
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws99/ws56_mumia.html
You can find plenty more both for and against Mumia just by searching on
Google. I recommend reading as much of both sides as you can.