No matter how many convoluted turns the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal takes, nothing will wash away the fact that he is a cop killer, period.

Respect is due to those who protest and oppose the death penalty as a matter of conscience, on moral grounds, or on the practical basis that it is far too expensive and so poorly applied as to be inconsequential as a deterent to violent crime.

However, there should be no respect granted for those who are willing to be used by a cynical manipulator like Abu-Jamal. He is not a political prisoner, he is not a victim of racism, and he is certainly not innocent, by his own (albeit recanted) admission.

It is likely Abu-Jamal will never face execution. At this point, perhaps it would be best for the State to simply commute him to a life sentence, which will rob him of the platform for his cynical assault on our justice system and his simple-minded supporters of their poster child.

Kill him or move on. If there is a God, Mumia will not be able to bullshit his way out of His sentence.

Interesting to note that Abu-Jamal's appeal is being granted on procedural grounds. The jury that convicted him had two African-Americans on it. As far as I'm aware, there's no rule that states a defendant must be tried before a jury reflecting the exact ethnic ratio of the locale in which the trial is taking place. There was a recent Supreme Court case on striking jurors on the basis of race, but I forget what the case was and how it came out.

There are good reasons to be against the death penalty, including the ones I subscribe to - that the criminal justice system is inevitably fallible, and the risk of executing innocents can never be eliminated fully.

There are (former) prisoners who provide strong arguments for why the death penalty should be abolished. Take Anthony Porter, the Illinois inmate freed thanks to the efforts of Northwestern University journalism professor David Protess and his students. Just one of many innocent men freed from death row.

However, I long ago came to the conclusion that Mumia Abu-Jamal is a poor cause celebre for anti-death penalty advocates. I first became interested in his case when I read an article about him years ago in The Village Voice. The article repeated that Abu-Jamal was innocent, but never provided one iota of information to show why or how. So, afterwards, I went online to investigate for myself. I read trial transcripts and looked at the evidence. And came to the conclusion that he is guilty as sin. The evidence is simply overwhelming.

That so many people support him is a testament to how some would rather jump on a bandwagon to support a cause rather than take some time to study whether that cause is worthy of their support. Emotion trumps logic every time. I understand why anti-death penalty supporters want to find a person deserving of their support to make a strong argument against the death penalty. I suggest a first step would be to support a man whose claim of innocence actually has some weight to it.

I truly feel sorrow at the prospect of officer Faulkner's widow having to sit through another trial and relive the events that took her husband's life while his killer gets to hog the media spotlight and protest his "innocence."

I defy supporters of Abu-Jamal to take a few hours (yes, that's how much time it takes) to study the trial transcripts in depth and then come to a conclusion. Or is it just easier to put on a T-shirt that says "Free Mumia?" Supporting a cause shouldn't be about fashion statements and jumping on a bandwagon; it's about taking the time to figure things out for yourself rather than reflexively saying "Oh, this guy's innocent because Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon say so. I'm getting on board!"

"Anonymous" stated that it's "interesting to note that Abu-Jamal's appeal is being granted on procedural grounds."

That usually is the case. In fact:

In In 1993's Herrera vs. Collins, a five-justice majority led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist ruled in a Texas death row case that a "claim of innocence," even a claim of innocence based on newly found evidence, does not entitle an inmate convicted in state court to constitutional review by a federal court. (From a September 2004 UPI story on the death penalty.)

That case should send a chill through anyone.

The story goes on:

Federal courts do not exist to correct errors of fact in state courts, Rehnquist said, but to make sure someone is not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution.

your website is always debunking liberal myths that make us look like idiots. why not do the same with this story? hopefully it goes without saying among your readers that the death penalty is barbaric (and unchristian from my point of view), places us in the company of the sickest nations on earth, and unfairly administered. it ought to be abolished, period. but from what i have read over the years, the evidence against mumia, while it may not be overwhelming, is of roughly the same character as the evidence standing behind hundreds of other capital convictions. it is by no means the worst case out there. so what if he has an interesting radio show? why should we care about him? because he's black and has cool dreadlocks? that's not good enough. tell us why, or why not.

edward craig

fort wayne, indiana

Like others here, I've been prompted by the hype to take a look at the circumstances of Mumia Abu-Jamal's sentance. So far, I haven't read anything that convinces me that he is not guilty of the charges against him.

But I have also read enough to convince me that he should have a new trial. I hope that happens, and I hope the verdict will be satisfactory to most reasonable people. And I hope at least the unrelenting on both sides will have their numbers significantly diminished.