Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal by Mumia Abu-Jamal, thereby letting his murder conviction stand. The appeal argued that some blacks had been unfairly excluded from the jury.
Mumia was convicted for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. But I am not convinced of his guilt. Nor is the human rights group Amnesty International (AI). An extensive investigation by AI experts has concluded that "numerous aspects of this case clearly failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings."
Mumia's supporters insist that he was set up, and that racial bias and witness coercion had played a big part in his unfair trial. They also point out that Faulkner was killed with a .44 caliber gun, while the gun that Abu-Jamal was licensed to carry as a nighttime taxi driver was a .38 caliber.
So, given the evidence that Mumia did not get a fair trial, how can the Supreme Court be so quick to deny him a new hearing? If Mumia is guilty as alleged, then it will be confirmed in the new trial and we can rest assured that we are punishing the right person. What's to lose, other than potentially a false conviction? Don't we want to be sure that we're punishing the right guy?
Why be afraid of shedding more light on the subject? If the light reveals that Mumia is guilty, then keep him locked up. But not for any other reason.
For these reasons, I see the Supreme Court's act of cowardice in this case as a travesty of justice.
What are the justices afraid of?
No comments:
Post a Comment