No death penalty for Mumia

[Roger Ramjets]

Likewise, and still would.

You are willing - nay eager - to kill a stranger in cold blood if you can get away with it?

Fine. How about if the perp had not yet committed a crime worthy of death, but you knew they were certain to do so in the future? How about if you had the opportunity to abort them before birth?

 

[Gazpacho]

I did some brief searching that was not that helpful, but does anyone know WHY people support Mumia? Is there ANY reason to doubt this conviction? Just what puts the doubt in people's mind (so much so that they make a campaign out of it?)

It has to do with the historical background of the FBI's documented campaign against the Panthers and the Philadelphia police conflict with MOVE, not to mention Philadelphia's horrendous urban decay. A lot of black Philadelphians and African-Americans nationwide don't trust the Philadelphia government any further than they can throw it. Mumia has played into this, promoting himself as the last political prisoner of black liberation. A lot of left-wing white activists, looking for a political prisoner to rally around, have also bought it.

 

[Zax63]

You are willing - nay eager - to kill a stranger in cold blood if you can get away with it?

Fine. How about if the perp had not yet committed a crime worthy of death, but you knew they were certain to do so in the future? How about if you had the opportunity to abort them before birth?

It's a ridiculous hypothetical and I don't see where this has anything to do with punishment after the fact but wouldn't you? If you knew with 100% certainty that some man, woman, child or fetus would go on to intentionally kill one or more people in a criminal act and the ONLY possible way of stopping them was to kill them, wouldn't you do it?
Would you do it if this person was going to kill you? Or your loved ones? Your friend? A neighbor? A stranger? Someone you dislike? I would say yes to all of those.

 

[BenBurch]

The consensus on JREF seems to be that this man is undoubtedly guilty and the support he has received from certain quarters to be misplaced.

I did some brief searching that was not that helpful, but does anyone know WHY people support Mumia? Is there ANY reason to doubt this conviction? Just what puts the doubt in people's mind (so much so that they make a campaign out of it?)

It makes people seem cool and radical and then they can fit in with the other poseurs. It's not about Mumia. It's about getting laid.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It makes people seem cool and radical and then they can fit in with the other poseurs. It's not about Mumia. It's about getting laid.

FTW

 

[Barber Shop]

It makes people seem cool and radical and then they can fit in with the other poseurs. It's not about Mumia. It's about getting laid.

Well in that case...

FREE MUMIA! FREE MUMIA!

 

[Gazpacho]

There is literally no reason to distrust the government other than to improve one's sex prospects.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

There is literally no reason to distrust the government other than to improve one's sex prospects.

And to get a cool t-shirt.

 

[timhau]

And to get a cool t-shirt.

Or sell them.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It's a ridiculous hypothetical

It's not ridiculous and it's not hypothetical. Several studies have shown a positive correlation between access to legal abortions and reduced crime rates (pretty obvious when you think about it - if a child isn't wanted then it's less likely to get a good upbringing). Certain mental disorders such as Psychopathy and Manic-Depression are known to have strong genetic components. If fetuses with these traits were eliminated then murder rates would drop dramatically.

However, some people consider all abortion to be murder, and would force a mother to carry an unwanted fetus to term no matter what the circumstances. And yet, these same people may enthusiastically support executing that hapless individual as an adult after he has committed the virtually inevitable capital crime. Quite a few even seem to take pleasure in the idea of having a personal hand in his execution. Of course it's only a small step from there to killing an abortion doctor because he's a 'murderer'.

I don't see where this has anything to do with punishment after the fact

Which do you think is better - eliminating potential murderers before they become actual people - or waiting until they kill somebody and then getting all upset about it?

If you knew with 100% certainty that some man, woman, child or fetus would go on to intentionally kill one or more people in a criminal act and the ONLY possible way of stopping them was to kill them, wouldn't you do it?
Would you do it if this person was going to kill you? Or your loved ones? Your friend? A neighbor? A stranger? Someone you dislike? I would say yes to all of those.

Under those hypothetical conditions, killing the perp before he can commit murder is an obvious choice (though it may not always be the best course of action). But if you were unable to stop him, would that justify killing him after the fact?

What justification can there be for using the Death Penalty?

1. Teaches him not to do it again. Pointless 'lesson' when he is now dead!

2. Prevents him from doing it again. Life in prison has the same effect, but without the extra killing.

3. Gives closure to friends and relatives of the victim(s). Life in prison and forgotten about is easier on them than 'Celebrity Death Row'.

4. We get off on it. Finally, a valid reason to keep the Death Penalty!

 

[Gazpacho]

And to get a cool t-shirt.

You can change your avatar but you'll always be a stooge to me.

 

[bynmdsue]

The future is never certain. You can't kill a man for something he may do, but you can punish him for something he has done. That's why it's called Capital Punishment not Capital Prevention.

 

[Zax63]

It's not ridiculous and it's not hypothetical. Several studies have shown a positive correlation between access to legal abortions and reduced crime rates (pretty obvious when you think about it - if a child isn't wanted then it's less likely to get a good upbringing). Certain mental disorders such as Psychopathy and Manic-Depression are known to have strong genetic components. If fetuses with these traits were eliminated then murder rates would drop dramatically.

However, some people consider all abortion to be murder, and would force a mother to carry an unwanted fetus to term no matter what the circumstances. And yet, these same people may enthusiastically support executing that hapless individual as an adult after he has committed the virtually inevitable capital crime. Quite a few even seem to take pleasure in the idea of having a personal hand in his execution. Of course it's only a small step from there to killing an abortion doctor because he's a 'murderer'.

Which do you think is better - eliminating potential murderers before they become actual people - or waiting until they kill somebody and then getting all upset about it?

Under those hypothetical conditions, killing the perp before he can commit murder is an obvious choice (though it may not always be the best course of action). But if you were unable to stop him, would that justify killing him after the fact?

You have shown it to be ridiculous by moving the goal post from 100% certainty to having a positive correlation with.
The other reason I considered your original premise ridiculous is that given the godlike power to know the future and to change it, it assumes that the only possible intervention is to kill the person. Maybe we could get them an education and a decent job, or give them the bicycle they really wanted as a teen or just prevent them from being in the circumstances to commit the murder they were "destined" to commit.


U.S.A. 2010
14,748 murders
46 executions

Sorry, if I'm not too worried over the plight of the murderers.

 

[Eddie Dane]

So, what am I going to do with all those 'Execute Mumia' T-shirts?

Do you think there might still be a market for them?

 

[carlitos]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/mumia.html

 

[Eddie Dane]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/mumia.html

LOL.

I'm so glad that there are actually people who put my dark ideas into practice.

 

[Fly Poster]

Correct.



He was parked across the street. And ran across the street to shoot Faulkner. Since he was driving a cab and that area was a red light district cabs being around are not strange (one of the witnesses was a cabbie). As bymndsue says it was a coincidence.

That being said, while the prosecution never made an issue of it, a lot of Cook's antics smell funny. Turning the wrong way? Up Locust St?! Then taking a swing at the arresting officer?!

A part of me, albeit with almost no real evidence, suspects that Mumia goaded or otherwise convinced his brother to pull this stunt but didn't tell him he was going to shoot a cop. His brother has never, ever given a single statement or gone on the stand* about what happened that night, even though the ludicrous scenarios presented by the defendants would mean his brother would have had to had witness the 'real killer'. The only statement Cook ever made was "I ain't got nothin' to do with this". But it is pure speculation.



* Cook (and Mumia) did sign an affidavit confirming the confession of a serial confessor to the crime once all of Mumia's appeals were used up.

Yeah, Mumia was able to predict that Faulkner would pull over Cook for a traffic stop at this precise location, or maybe he got his brother to drive up and down the street all day until a cop pulled him over so he could shoot said cop in front of loads of people?

I am gonna have a go at speculation too: Mumia shot that cop, either out of anger at his brother being stopped, and the fracas that ensued, or because from his POV (possible literally or figuratively, or both), it looked like an assault by the cop on his brother.

Just because William Cook had little in the way of injuries, does not mean an assault did not take place (or what could be seen as an assault from Mumia's POV), I was mugged by multiple attackers, all throwing punches, and came out relatively unscathed by guarding myself, but to an onlooker, they would have expected me to have taken a right shoeing.

 

[Wroclaw]

In the United States, you can legally use deadly force to protect someone else from assault - unless the person doing the assaulting is a police officer.

Mumia is almost definitely guilty, probably got an unfair trial, and the cop he killed probably had it coming.

That's the best summation I ever heard of the case. What is often not said about this case is that the cop in question was beating Mumia's brother when the shooting happened. It happened right around the corner from where I live. There's not a lawyer in Philadelphia who doesn't believe Mumia killed Faulkner but none of them think it was first degree murder, nor do they think Mumia's original trial was a fair one.

 

[Wroclaw]

Mumia didn't want a trial. He wanted a political grandstand. He wanted a Chicago 7-style chaos-fest. He made ludicrous demands and other demands without warning. He made crazy outbursts at all times. He kept important documents from his own lawyer. He didn't listen to his lawyer, and despite hand-picking his own lawyer he berated and insulted the man when he tried to give Mumia advice.

All of the above is true.

It's also true that Faulkner was beating up Mumia's brother at the time of the shooting.

It's also true that Sabo MASSIVELY misinstructed the jury.

For very good reasons, we favor the defendant in such matters and provide the greatest possible leeway. Mumia clearly abused the process, but that doesn't mean he vacated his right to a fair trial.

 

[Wroclaw]

Is that really correct? I'd imagine qualifiers are necessarily added to elaborate that, 'cause it is not as if it is legal to, for example, beat a guy repeatedly over the head with a baseball bat or fire a shotgun-salve at his gut if he's punched another guy.

No, but you can shoot someone once for breaking into your home when you're there, and if they die, it's still legal.