Human rights and the Mumia case

Today marks the 25th anniversary of the murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner.

African-American journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death for the murder, and remains in prison to this day as the appeals process drags on.

This case is one of the most divisive that I've ever seen. On one side, Faulkner's friends and family continue to call for "justice". On the other side, Mumia's supporters continue to loudly proclaim his innocence and call for his release.

I don't know whether Mumia is guilty or innocent. Nobody really can, because the system that tried him was so flawed.

Amnesty International continues to question the fairness of Mumia's original trial. In reviewing the case, Amnesty found that, as in so many of the trials of the men and women condemned to death across the U.S., Mumia's trial was "in violation of international law and standards governing the imposition of capital punishment."

According to Amnesty, "Mumia Abu-Jamal was denied effective and adequate legal representation and was denied the right to legally represent himself. African-Americans appear to have been systematically removed form the jury, thereby denying him the right to be judged by a panel that represented the racial makeup for the area. His lawyer was denied sufficient funds to hire experts that challenged the state's version of events. Throughout his trial, the judge appeared to be overtly hostile to Mumia Abu-Jamal and have a bias in favour of the prosecution."

Amnesty continues to call for a new trial without the possibility of a death sentence.

[Read Amnesty's full report on this case.]

My heart goes out to Mrs. Faulkner. But could she really ever find true closure as long as there remain so many questions about the system that convicted Mumia?

Isn't a new and just trial really the only way to achieve true closure?