Death to the penalty

Abu-Jamal's case demonstrates weaknesses

After a 17-year struggle, one of the most controversial court cases in recent years may be at an end. Last week, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge signed a new death warrant for former radio journalist and Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal. Since his conviction in the slaying of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1982, his case has become a cause celebre for opponents of the death penalty. But the U. S. Supreme Court has rejected his request for a new trial.

Despite the rejection of his appeal by the Supreme Court, Abu-Jamal has continued to protest his innocence for 17 years. And it is certainly true that his case is full of problems: Abu-Jamal's lawyers contend that his rights were violated when he was denied the right to represent himself in court, and that he was wrongly removed from the courtroom after a confrontation with witnesses. But regardless of Abu-Jamal's guilt or innocence, he should not be executed.

The government should not have the right to execute its citizens. The criminal justice system is often biased when administering capital punishment. Factors such as race and socioeconomic status very often influence sentencing; minorities and those of a lower socioeconomic status are far more likely to be sentenced to death than upper-class whites. It is unconscionable that a system that seeks to deal out justice can be so biased.

Most importantly, unlike any other legal sentence, the death penalty is completely irrevocable. A person wrongly sentenced to life imprisonment can be released, but someone executed for their alleged crime will never have a chance to be compensated for the wrongful conviction.

Finally, it is hypocritical for the government to punish convicted killers by committing the very crime for which they claim to be delivering justice. If it is wrong for an individual to commit murder, it is equally wrong for a state to do so.

Early this year, a journalism class at Northwestern University helped to overturn the death sentence of a man who was wrongly convicted of a double murder. In the state of Illinois alone, there have been nine death-row inmates set free after their innocence was proven. This begs the question of how many other wrongful convictions have been overlooked. It should not take a determined group of college students to do the work of the police and the justice system. If a journalism class can determine that a convicted man was innocent, why can't the government do so? And in a case as full of holes as Abu-Jamal's, carrying out the death penalty would be a grave risk.

Regardless of the eventual fate of Abu-Jamal, his case has done a great deal to bring about debate over the death penalty. But that debate should not quiet down with the end of the furor over a trendy case. Death-row inmates who do not have the support of celebrities and activists of all stripes also deserve attention.

The government should not have the right to administer capital punishment. If one innocent person is saved by striking down the death penalty, it would be worth it.

10-20-99