• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Death Penalty Dropped Against Mumia Abu-Jamal

Tigger said:
Wow. You must really be doing well to be more than happy to put that much extra tax money in the hands of the State of Colorado and the Federal Government to house these worthless wastes of flesh and oxygen...
Click to expand...

what if they are actually innocent?
 
Tigger said:
Wow. You must really be doing well to be more than happy to put that much extra tax money in the hands of the State of Colorado and the Federal Government to house these worthless wastes of flesh and oxygen.
Click to expand...

It costs more to execute them than it does to house them for life.

Tigger said:
You apparently have three current members of Death Row in Colorado. At a guestimate of $25K a year (probably much more) for the next 20 years, that's $1.5 million to incarcerate versus $1.50 to execute. Gee, I don't see any difference there.
Click to expand...

You can't just "execute them" for a 1.50. Being on death row is expensive, and it takes a ton of money to kill someone through the hands of government (as it should be). As such, it's cheaper to house a man for life than to kill them. And that's right where it should be, it should cost more to kill a man than to keep them alive for the rest of their lives.
 
Thunder said:
what if they are actually innocent?
Click to expand...

In Colorado they are not. To use our death penalty, the burden of proof for the State is well higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt". We've made it so that the prosecution pretty much has to definitively demonstrate that the defendant was the one whom committed the crime, and that it is a crime deserving of death. That's why we only have 3 people on death row.
 
That he'll never be free again sounds fine to me. Costs of keeping versus killing is irrelevant. In this case, it may be more punishment to keep him alive for a very long time still, and making sure he dies in prison.
 
Thunder said:
you can not know that for sure.
Click to expand...

If you prove to definitive, then yes you do. The three people on our death row are the only ones who could have committed the crimes they are accused of.
 
Thunder said:
what if they are actually innocent?
Click to expand...

Then they should have been smart enough to be able to produce an alibi. We live in a society these days where it is almost impossible not to be caught on camera or have your whereabouts verifiable almost 24/7.


Ikari said:
It costs more to execute them than it does to house them for life.
Click to expand...

Only if you're stupid enough to allow them umpteen appeals and not fast-track the two they should be given.

Ikari said:
You can't just "execute them" for a 1.50. Being on death row is expensive, and it takes a ton of money to kill someone through the hands of government (as it should be). As such, it's cheaper to house a man for life than to kill them. And that's right where it should be, it should cost more to kill a man than to keep them alive for the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...

No it should not. Definitely not. What do you do with a mad/rabid/vicious dog.... YOU PUT IT DOWN!!!! Give them 2 appeals... the SJC of the State and the SCOTUS (if they'll hear it). I once saw a stat that indicated some obscenely high percentage (I want to say over 75%) of cases that are ever overturned are done so on the FIRST appeal. If it gets past that level it is very rarely overturned. So why are we giving these people more than one or two appeals? If there's really something wrong with the case it should be obvious up front. If not, then it's time for them to meet the True Judge for their real punishment.
 
Tigger said:
Only if you're stupid enough to allow them umpteen appeals and not fast-track the two they should be given.
Click to expand...

There must be protections in place to ensure that the person found guilty is actually guilty.

Tigger said:
No it should not. Definitely not. What do you do with a mad/rabid/vicious dog.... YOU PUT IT DOWN!!!! Give them 2 appeals... the SJC of the State and the SCOTUS (if they'll hear it). I once saw a stat that indicated some obscenely high percentage (I want to say over 75%) of cases that are ever overturned are done so on the FIRST appeal. If it gets past that level it is very rarely overturned. So why are we giving these people more than one or two appeals? If there's really something wrong with the case it should be obvious up front. If not, then it's time for them to meet the True Judge for their real punishment.
Click to expand...

A human is not a dog.
 
Ikari said:
A human is not a dog.
Click to expand...

True. I have much more compassion for dogs and other animals. They don't have the higher brain function to know Right from Wrong like people do. I also find most animals to be better companions than most people are.
 
Samhain said:
Why do you think he's innocent?
Click to expand...
Judge Sabo being a blatant racist and sending more people on death row than any judge and all of them being minorities.


"Key concerns

The three prosecution eyewitnesses substantively altered their description of what they saw between their original statements to police and their trial testimony.The witnesses were confused and unclear about the height of the shooter, what clothes he was wearing, in which hand he held the gun, and whether he ran away from the scene.The alleged confession, reportedly crucial to the jury's decision and sentencing, was first reported more than two months after the shooting.It directly contradicted the contemporaneous notes of one of the alleged witnesses to the confession (a police officer) that "the negro male made no comments." This evidence was not put before the jury.There is also evidence that witnesses were offered inducements to alter their testimony in favour of the prosecution's version of events. This evidence was not put before the jury.Lack of adequate ballistic tests to determine whether Abu-Jamal's gun had recently been fired. It was not determined, for instance, whether there was residue on his hands from firing a gun."

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/020/2000/en/ec79fc22-dfa8-11dd-86cb-8b2e02a92d82/amr510202000en.html


" Why, if he fired four bullets down at Faulkner, only hitting him once in the head, was there no evidence in the sidewalk around the officer's body of the bullets that missed?"
Gun test raises questions about Mumia Abu-Jamal case - Philly.com

The policeman was killed with a 44 caliber gun. Abu-Jamal's gun which he was licensed to carry as a night-time taxi driver, was a 38 caliber.
William Singletary, a Vietnam veteran and local businessman, saw the whole incident and has testified that Abu-Jamal was not the shooter. However, the police forced him to change his story and intimidated him into leaving Philadelphia.
http://www.iacenter.org/polprisoners/maj_gunlegal.htm

[URL]http://homepages.sover.net/~foodsong/mumia1.htm[/URL]​
 
Link 1: AI opposes the death penalty, and actually state at the bottom of the page that they don't take a position on his guilt or innocence.

Link 2: This is a promo for a book. They've added a retired NASA guy for their story, but in the end, it sounds like a TV special analyzing the Zupruder film.

Link 3&4: They contradict each other. One says he was killed with a .38, which Mumia owned and was found with at the scene, and other one swears its a .44. No court documents state that the gun was a .44 either.
 
Two points.

First, I'm always in favor of not killing someone. Just in case we're wrong, and because revenge makes us less moral.

Second, the confession discussed earlier in the thread is hearsay. The customary form of a confession is a written statement that the accused adopts in court. A recanted confession is not adopted, and so is inadmissible. Despite what some said earlier on, just because a police officer is present or overhears a confession does not make it admissible. From the information presented in the links here, the confession in the hospital is 100% inadmissible in court.
 
Paschendale said:
Two points.

First, I'm always in favor of not killing someone. Just in case we're wrong, and because revenge makes us less moral.

Second, the confession discussed earlier in the thread is hearsay. The customary form of a confession is a written statement that the accused adopts in court. A recanted confession is not adopted, and so is inadmissible. Despite what some said earlier on, just because a police officer is present or overhears a confession does not make it admissible.
Click to expand...

As already explained by others, it was NOT hearsay. It is common for fellow prisoners to testify at trial that they overheard or were told things by the accused.

From the information presented in the links here, the confession in the hospital is 100% inadmissible in court.
Click to expand...

It WAS admissible since it was used in court.
 
Step on the cockroach and be done with him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom