If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

And get the death penalty against you thrown out. Convicted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal got the death penalty against him dropped. So, in Philadelphia, shoot a wounded cop while he's down in cold blood and you can blame it on a racist justice system, get enough Hollywood liberals behind you, and all will be OK. Only a matter of time before this lump of shit is released from jail the way things are going. Here's a link to the story:http://news.yahoo.com/da-dropping-de...160844118.html Way to piss on the grave of Daniel Faulkner.

I do not know enough about the legal issues in the case to say that he is innocent and should be set free. I've read lots of comments on both sides of the issue, but I wasn't on the jury and didn't see the evidence laid out for me in that way. I know Mumia had connections to the MOVE group, which doesn't exactly help his side of the argument, imo.

I'm always opposed to the death penalty, though. A life sentence should mean a life sentence-no early paroles for those convicted of 1st degree murder, and most who are convicted of 2nd degree murder.

I do not know enough about the legal issues in the case to say that he is innocent and should be set free. I've read lots of comments on both sides of the issue, but I wasn't on the jury and didn't see the evidence laid out for me in that way. I know Mumia had connections to the MOVE group, which doesn't exactly help his side of the argument, imo.

I'm always opposed to the death penalty, though. A life sentence should mean a life sentence-no early paroles for those convicted of 1st degree murder, and most who are convicted of 2nd degree murder.

I heard that when there is a death penalty case in trial, that prosecutors are able to selectively bias the jury by only allowing people who support the death penalty on the jury.

Only allowing people who support the death penalty is not a fair cross-representation of one's peers, so it is not actually a jury of peers. People who support the death penalty are also far more likely to convict a suspect, all things being considered equal.

It would be like having a trial for a drug conviction with the jury being entirely selected by NORML.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Another thing I heard, is that this guy got his Death Penalty sentence changed not because those making the decision wanted to go easy on him, quite the opposite actually. There was a possibility that Jamal would have been given a new sentencing hearing on the grounds that the jury may have been given misleading instructions during his original trial.

If they pursued the death penalty, there may have needed to be a re-hearing on his sentencing based on jury misinformation, which would have opened up the possibility of new evidence and new witnesses on behalf of Jamal.

With the impending possibility of a new sentencing hearing, or even a new trial coming up, with new evidence for the defense, they instead decided to stop the whole thing.

I've still got to read more on this, but this is what I've been hearing today.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.