Mumia Lives

It's a mixed blessing at best for those who are convinced that he's an innocent pawn, a political prisoner, a hero (choose one or all).

It isn't, after all, exoneration and a cash reward and an apology and a free trip to Bimini and maybe a change in the way cops and prosecutors and courts conduct themselves.  It isn't, in fact, any of those things.

But it's something.  And it carries a lesson.

Mumia Abu-Jamal has spent 30 years in prison for a crime he (and a host of supporters around the world) insists he did not commit.  The state of Pennsylvania, through the office of the prosecutor in Philadelphia, obtained a death sentence back at the start and has fought to keep it in place (and the conviction, too) ever since.

And now they're done.  Sort of.

They cried "Uncle" on the sentence.  No more.  After the latest court decision vacating Mumia's death sentence and the decision by SCOTUS not to reverse, the state's given up.  

From Philly.com.

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams announced this morning he will not seek the death penalty against Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Which is something.

On the other hand, it leaves Mumia (1) convicted of a murder he may not have committed and after a trial that was pretty clearly unfair, and (2) with a sentence of Death in Prison.

Big whoop.

And yet.  It's something.  Not enough maybe, certainly nowhere near enough for Mumia or his supporters.  But something.  And not something small.

The state gave up. It will let him live.

Which brings us to the lesson.

Don't quit. Don't stop.

There have been 1277 executions by the various governments of this country since the killing resumed in January 1977.  But there have been tens of thousands - I have no idea how many, but it's well up in 5 figures and might be in 6 - who were not killed.  Some had cases dismissed.  There have been a few not guilty verdicts.  Many were sentenced to something other than murder in the trial court.

Others had death sentences vacated in state and federal courts on direct appeal or some sort of motion or collateral action.  But it's taken, generally, years.  Sometimes decades.  Of incredibly hard work by dedicated, creative, passionate people with mostly far too limited resources.  But it happens.  And it will continue to happen.

Unless we call it a day.

30 years.

But they won't kill him.

It's not enough.  But it's no small thing.

Fixing What's Wrong

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm back to the Second Amendment because of this comment, because I find my own views on the Second Amendment so at odds with how I see the world, and because, frankly, I haven't figured out just what I want to say about Judge Bolton's order in United States v. Arizona or about the recently flaring contretemps (I called it a pissing match when I started writing about it a couple of days ago) among abolitionists over Mumia Abu Jamal, or about the vote in the House to reduce the crack/cocaine disparity from 100:1 to 18:1.

* * * * * * * * *

OK, a moment on the short versions of what I want to say about those things.
1. Arizona.
Good for Judge Bolton.  In case you've been in a cave for the past 48 hours, the Honorable Susan Bolton, Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, granted a preliminary injunction preventing parts of Arizona's anti-immigrant law.  Here's the New York Times explanation.

“Preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely pre-empted by federal law to be enforced,” she said.
“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens,” she wrote. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose,” she said, citing a previous Supreme Court case, a “ ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”
The judge’s decision was not her final word on the case. In granting the injunction, she simply indicated that the Justice Department was likely, but not certain, to prevail on those points at a later trial in federal court. She made no ruling on the six other suits that also challenged the law.

Essentially, this isn't the last word, or even Judge Bolton's last word, on the merits of the law.  Her ruling grants a preliminary injunction, which means not that the law is unconstitutional but that on review it looks like the government is "likely" to prove at a trial that portions of the law are unconstitutional.  Therefore, those portions of the law don't take effect for now (because you don't want a probably unconstitutional law being enforced while you wait around for the courts to decide whether it is in fact unconstitutional).  Moreover, Arizona can, and says it will, appeal her decision.  In any event, here's Judge Bolton's summary (I'm never going to capture her formatting, so I'm reworking the format and a bit of punctuation.)
Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court finds that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following Sections of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law:

Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070, A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person.

Section 3 of S.B. 1070, A.R.S. § 13-1509: creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers.
Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070, A.R.S. § 13-2928(C): creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work.
Section 6 of S.B. 1070, A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

S.B. 1070 was not just anti-immigrant. (And as a practical matter, anti-Mexican and people-of-color immigrant; Sheriff Joe and the boys weren't going to be searching for undocumented French Canadians.)  It violated the Constitution in a number of ways.  Consider, for instance, Section 6, which simply says the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to suspected immigrants without documentation.  Arizona just cannot selectively abrogate the Bill of  Rights - even if it thinks the feds are insufficiently vigilant about enforcing immigration law.
Frankly, I wish Bolton would just wipe out the whole law.  But then I remember what Voltaire taught.

Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.
(The best is the enemy of the good.)

2. Mumia.
Sigh.  It turns out that back in December, leading up to February's 4th World Conference Against the Death Penalty, US best members of the organizing group (the World Coalition Against the Death penalty) signed a memorandum to the Conference organizers objecting to the major role planned for and around Mumia Abu Jamal.

ECPM has unilaterally, and over objection, determined to give the Mumia Abu-Jamal case a prominent role in the upcoming 4th World Congress Against the Death Penalty, including the participation of Mr. Abu-Jamal's lawyers and his direct participation by telephone. The US members of the Steering Committee of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty do not agree to this, because it will be counter-productive to our effort to achieve abolition in our country.
The Abu-Jamal case, regardless of its merits, acts as a lightning rod that galvanizes opponents of abolition and neutralizes key constituencies in the cause of abolition. Continuing to give Abu-Jamal focused attention unnecessarily attracts our strongest opponents and alienates coalition partners at a time when we need to build alliances, not foster hatred and enmity.

I can't vouch for the bona fides of the memo.  It seems to have come to light only this week.   But it's also clearly an accurate statement.  There are groups including (and this is relevant here) the Fraternal Order of Police which have been helpful in achieving statutory abolition in New Jersey and New Mexico but which avidly seek the Abu Jamal's execution.  However, to many abolitonists, he is a hero: The quintessential innocent victim of a police and prosecutor and judge frame-up; a powerful, articulate voice against racism, capitalism, and the death penalty.  There is outrage, pretty well captured by this on-line petition and accompanying statement on the horribly formatted home page of the Campaign To End the Death Penalty.

Calling All Abolitionists - Stand Up for Mumia Abu-Jamal!
We, the undersigned, strongly condemn the letter, signed by some US abolitionists, opposing Pennsylvania death row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal's participation in the World Congress Against the Death Penalty and claiming that highlighting his case hurts the cause for abolition in the U.S.
(see http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/116. See also Dave Lindorff's article about this at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/117 ).
We stand in solidarity with Mumia, who has spent the past twenty-eight years on death row, the victim of a trial and court procedures fraught with racism, and police, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.
Mumia currently faces a grave threat: the US Supreme Court has accepted an appeal to re-instate Mumia's death sentence, and Philadelphia's District Attorney has pledged his intention to pursue his execution. Mumia urgently needs our support, and we call for a new trial for him now.
We reject any call by abolitionists to put "coalition-building" with law enforcement over and above the struggle for justice of any death row prisoner, be they innocent or guilty.
We also reject the logic of having police organizations that fight tooth and nail for the execution of those with unpopular views as a partner or ally.
Many police organizations – as well as prosecutors and judges-- have organized against our efforts to win justice for Mumia, and have served as guardians of an unjust "justice" system.
We deplore divisive strategies that seek to exclude death row prisoners from our movement. We call on all participating organizations in the World Congress to re-affirm their support for Mumia Abu-Jamal and all death row prisoners in our struggle to end the death penalty worldwide.

I've written about Mumia before as the nation's leading death row celebrity.  His fans (and there are many) think I'm insufficiently deferential to his importance to the abolition movement (and the movements against racism and classism and capitalism and what-all ism).  I'm not interested in throwing him under the bus (which is what supporters say the memo attempted to do).
He should not be executed.  That's not negotiable.
He IS a powerful voice that should be heard.  There is much to commend him.  And like so many others on death row, he is clearly the victim of shoddy police work, prosecutorial misconduct, and biased judging.  (None of which makes him factually innocent; I'm agnostic on that question, as I generally am about claims of factual innocence.)
But he is divisive.  More to the point, he's a distraction.  It may be that he is a particularly powerful voice overseas, but we are not overseas.  While I welcome international pressure and efforts on behalf of abolition, they are necessary and vital to the cause, we in the United States must win the struggle for abolition here, in the United States.
There are too many cases, too many injustices, too many wrongs in too many places, to hang up one poster.   Here's the question to ask before putting Mumia (or anyone else) front and center: will he gain us more support from those we need - judges, legislators, governors, voters - than he will cost?
And if the focus is abolition rather than fixing all that's wrong in the US including abolition, will he gain more support on that issue?
The anti-abortion but also anti-death penalty Catholics?  The I-don't-give-a-damn-about-social-justice libertarians (no, that's not all libertarians) who think the government is too incompetent to be deciding who to kill?  The liberals who fear anyone who looks even a little non-mainstream?  The conservative bankers who think there's a better use for the money we pump into killing people?  The folks who think we should give all people charged with crimes, innocent or guilty, LWOP because it's worse then death?  The people who think the system is broken but that executions are fine in principle?
Mumia gets attention because he's such a powerful voice and because his lobby has lots of powerful voices.  That's no small thing.
I'm not so sure that giving him yet more platform space helps the abolition cause more than it hurts.  I'm certain it's a discussion that shouldn't be had in hyperbolic terms and open letters.
If the goal is abolition rather than rabble rousing, the question is how best to achieve it.
And so there's Voltaire's lesson.

Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.

I'd like to change many things in this country.  But if I can achieve a major victory today, I'm not going to refuse because there are other things that need to be done also.  Don't need one global correction.  I'll take the wins one at a time.
But they have to be wins.   I won't trade Mumia's life for another.  But that's not really the choice, I don't think.
3. Crack.
How many years havewe been after this?  And yet again, Voltaire.

Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.

According to Grits Ron Paul had the line of the day.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul quipped that instead of the "Fair Sentencing Act" the bill should be called the "Slightly Fairer Sentencing Act" because they didn't reduce it to 1:1, calling to repeal the entire war on drugs.

Yeah.  But damn, it's a hell of an improvement.   We've been locking up people at an absurd rate, for preposterous lengths of time, on the faulty assumption that we can stop the use of illegal drugs by locking up enough of them.
The war on drugs is a failure.  Complete and abyssmal.  Locking up druggies accomplishes nothing but making criminals.
That's not quite true.  It also destroys families, increases crime, wastes billions of dollars a year, and makes us all less safe.
Treating crack as the worst drug in the history of drugs does the same thing - but puts a special focus on hurting the poor and members of minority communities.  And it's a fraud in another way.  Crack is cocaine.  Any disparity in sentencing approach is simply dishonest.  Still, 18:1 is a hell of a lot better than 100:1.  Raising the threshold for mandatory minimums won't solve the problems.  It's not the best.
But it's damn well a step in the right direction.

* * * * * * * * *

And so there's the anonymous commenter.  Here's what he (I assume "he") wrote.

In 1755 Samuel John­son pub­lished the the “Webster’s dic­tio­nary” of the day.
It was the defini­tive dic­tio­nary of the Eng­lish lan­guage at the time the US Constitution was written.
Under the word “arms” the 1755 def­i­n­i­tion was ” weapons of defense or armour of defense“
The definition of arms did not restrict the term to portable hand held weapons like mus­kets and swords, (as some revi­sion­ists who try to rein­ter­pret the sec­ond amend­ment claim)…but even included the most ter­ri­ble weapons of the day…the can­non.
Which means that Amer­i­cans are not lim­ited in what type of weapon they can own: a stinger mis­sile, a tank, a bazooka, a flame thrower. Any “weapon of defense” is fair game. Machine guns, hand grenades, RPG’s all are included in the sec­ond amend­ment. I would even go so far as to say that Americans even have the right to possess biological weapons.
Amer­i­cans have the right under the con­sti­tu­tion to unre­stricted access to any weapon that can be use in any pos­si­ble way in defense of the coun­try or the individual.
There are those, even some in the NRA, who would like to draw a distinction between a handgun and , say a bazooka, a missile or a suitcase nuke. But based to the second amendment and the definition of "arms" , Americans citizens have the right to own any weapon they wish.
No exceptions. 

It's not that simple. 
Dr. Johnson's Dictionary is a quirky thing.  It's revered for its wisdom, wit, and erudition.  Rather less so for its definitions.  If you want to know what a word meant in England in the mid-1700s, you'd do better to study the OED than to read Johnson's Dictionary.
I'm not bothering to walk across the room to check what the OED says about "arms" because I don't think it much matters.
First, it doesn't matter because words don't stand by themselves.  They occur in contexts which limit their meaning.  A basic rule of interpreting all language for legal purposes (and enough of the drafters were lawyers that they clearly understood this) is that no part of a written document is to be ignored.  That means that the part about the "Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is not just excess.  What exactly it means, and why it's there, is key.  Another part of how you interpret is in light of what the document's author's intended.
Put all that together and you come to my conclusion (or at least I do):  The Second Amendment secures your right to possess weapons suitable to overthrow the government.  And it secures that right for that purpose and only for that purpose.
Second, it doesn't matter because whatever the words of the Second Amendment or the intent of the framers, the courts (and regardless of how you may feel about it, they are the final arbiters of what the Constitution does and doesn't mean) will never say that individuals "have the right under the con­sti­tu­tion to unre­stricted access to any weapon that can be use in any pos­si­ble way in defense of the coun­try or the individual."  Nor will they say that individuals have the right to whatever weaponry they might need which would enable them to rise up in successful revolution.  Ain't gonna happen.
And it probably shouldn't.  For one thing, the consequence is insane when we have the technology we do today.  I'm sorry.  I know there are folks who think we'd all be safer and crime reduced if everyone were armed.  But nukes are simply different from conventional weapons.  The potential for an accident, and the consequence of that accident, changes the reasonable terms of the discussion.  So does the potential for what happens when someone with an h-bomb in the basement suddenly goes bat-shit crazy.  (And yes, people do that sometimes.)
For another, none of the provisions of the Bill of Rights has ever (that's ever) been treated as absolute.  Freedom of speech can be abridged.  The right to free exercise of religion has limits.  You can be searched and seized without a warrant or probable cause or even good reason.  The right to a fair trial is limited.  So is the right to - actually, so is the right to everything.  Why imagine that the Second Amendment, whatever it might mean by pure parsing of words, is the only provision that is to be applied by purely parsing words?
Besides, as  Eugene Volokh pointed out in the post that got me started on this last week, even if you try to take the Second Amendment literally, you have to decide what's an infringement and what isn't. 
So where are we?
I hate the Second Amendment.  I've said that before.  I hate guns.  I think that as a matter of public policy we should disarm everyone.  But the Amendment is there, and I believe in the Constitution.  I'm happy to have philosophical discussions, but if you want to talk about giving teeth to the Second Amendment, you won't get there by advocating the right to revolution or the right to a tank in your back yard.

Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.

In this best of all possible worlds.

Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.

Third Try on the Cult of Celebrity

I've obviously struck a nerve.

I'm taking one more shot at this, and then I'll just let the commentators have at it (and thank you, by the way, for reading and commenting - even if it's to tell me that I'm full of shit).

Mumia's not an empty celebrity, not a mere celebrity. But he is a celebrity. Like it or not, he gets far more attention than the overwhelming number of folks on death row in the U.S., and it isn't because his case is so much more outrageous.

Same for Troy Davis and Kenneth Foster and probably a couple of dozen others, by the way. Each of the small number of men and women who get international campaigns mounted on their behalf because they're articulate or attractive or caught the attention of someone or some group who gathered the time and money and organization and worked tirelessly on their behalf.

More power to them.

But don't tell me they aren't celebrities. They are. The particular attention they garner, that's garnered for them, the sheer quantity, virtually defines celebrity.

I'm not saying they should be ignored or that their supporters should stop. (Frankly, I'm not telling anyone what to do.) I'm not saying they do no good. They do. Sometimes the attention even saves, or helps save, their lives.

What I'm saying, simply, is that there are some 3,279 men and women on death row in the United States. Probably fewer than 100 - whatever the number it's a small percentage - have any sort of significant public or media attention. Their lawyers (if they have lawyers and if the lawyers are any good) struggle to find the resources they need to mount anything beyond the most cursory defense.

(In one case, I asked a federal court for the money for arson investigator since there was at least some question of whether my client actually committed arson. The judge said no. The state's arson investigators said it was arson, so mine would agree, so there was no point. That's how it really works, folks.)

I'm not suggesting that Mumia or his supporters don't care about that. I'm not suggesting that they aren't using his star power on behalf of all the condemned. I'm not criticizing anyone.

I'm just noting that, for instance, when the judge in Ohio yesterday declared that he didn't believe that the witnesses against Mark Brown who recanted their testimony and, therefore, saw no reason to do anything to prevent or delay Brown's execution 2 weeks from today, it didn't make the New York Times or CNN or Le Monde.

Pretty much nobody noticed. Pretty much nobody cares about Mark Brown, or even knows who he is.

I don't represent Brown, never have. I have no particular stake in his case. But he's the next guy up. Not just in Ohio, but in the U.S. And right now he needs all the help he can get. So does Alabama's Robert Bryant Melson due two weeks later. So did the guys in December. And all the rest of the ones you haven't heard of.

Mumia'd like to save them. So would his supporters. So would I.

But one way to help try to save them is to notice them. The focus on celebrity, makes it harder in some ways. The big trees obscure the shrubs. How many people know which is the ninth tallest mountain in the world? The seventh brightest star in the sky?

The focus on celebrity as a means of saving the ordinary folks is a hope for deus ex machina, and it rarely works that way.

The celebrities have powerful voices - hell, that's partly how they become celebrities. They address a big picture which needs to be addressed, but they model a false one.

Again, most of the men and women on the row aren't altogether innocent. Most aren't articulate, most aren't saintly. Most have nothing much to recommend them except that they are human. To take just a bit of a speech from Shylock:

I am a Jew. Hath
not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die?

And so they are, those men and women on the row.

It used to be (I'm going back 10 or more years now, I think) that the on-line abolitionists engaged in constant, too often mean-spirited debate about the proper arguments to be used in advocating for abolition. You must argue religion, some said. No, you must deny religion. You must argue only morality. No, ignore morality and argue only innocence. Or only cost.

I was part of the cadre saying there was no single right approach. You argue whatever will move this or that audience. What matters is ending the killing and saving the lives, not insisting that those things should only be done by a world that shares a single motivation for it. "Let a hundred flowers bloom," I said, quoting Mao and looking to the announced idea if not the down and dirty reality.

I was wary then of the cult of celebrity and I'm wary of it now. I don't want to stop Mumia and his supporters. I just want to spread the energy about. To Mark Brown, to Robert Bryant Melson, to the 3278 other individuals, each of whom shares collective reasons, but also has individual ones, why he or she ought not be murdered by the government.

So I guess the charge that mine is an old point is right.

Mumia, Jesus, and Bortella Philisten

An anonymous commentator was put off by my comments about Mumia.

I don't understand the anti-Mumia resentment. Seems more grounded in hostility to his supporters than anything else. I have worked on behalf of many people on death row, not really on Mumia's, but I respect and admire his supporters and their efforts. They should keep up the good work.

I started to write a responsive comment, but decided to do this instead.

I suppose I wasn't as clear as I might have been.

I'm neither anti-Mumia, nor anti-his supporters. I have enormous respect for both. They're articulate, passionate. They raise important issues of race, class, and social justice. Of course they should keep up their work.

But I'm troubled that the cult of celebrity drowns out the cases of those less charismatic. They, those without charisma, without followings, are after all the vast majority. Singularity, exceptionalism, can be rallying points. But they can also be distractions.

Give us the resources and energy that have been pumped into Mumia's case over the past 28 years or so and see what we can do for numbers of others. I don't mean that exactly the way it may sound. But why him? Or, more precisely, why not, say, Bortella Philisten? He's also on Pennsylvania's death row, also for the killing of a police officer. He's been there for about 15 years now.

Do you know anything about the case? Probably not. Ever heard of him before? Probably not. Are the international forces of nobility out marching and rallying on his behalf? Probably not.

Did he get a fair trial? Probably not. Is there evidence that he might be innocent? I have no idea, but it wouldn't shock me. Why aren't the glamorous folks out there holding fund-raisers for him?

I just pulled Philisten's name off a list. I don't believe I've ever heard of him before, either. And that's the point.

I'm not suggesting, have not suggested, that Mumia doesn't deserve attention. But so do all the others. Philisten and Ohio's Mark Brown and the rest. All of them. Mumia's no more important than they.

Jesus was not the only one the Romans crucified just then. But the only one of the others we know is Barabas - who received clemency. And for that Jesus preached about social justice, his celebrity took root a whole lot more than his message. And, of course, he and the others (except Barabas) were executed.

I don't mean to denigrate Jesus, either. But look at all the anonymous others who got killed while the focus was on him. Then ask:

What would he do?

Death Row Celebrity

I've always been wary of death-row celebrities.

I'm talking Mumia Abu-Jamal, and if you don't know the tale, well, here is the very short version.

Daniel Faulkner, a Philadelphia police officer was shot and killed in December 1981. Mumia, a part-time cab driver, radio journalist, Black Panther Party member, and general pain in the ass was convicted of the killing and sentenced to die.

Because the trial was so ostentatiously unfair, and because Mumia himself is so damned articulate, and because he insists on his innocence and there's a fair amount of evidence to support that claim, he's become an international cause célèbre, the most famous person on death row.

His supporters, and there are many, insist he was railroaded. Many have resolved the case for themselves: He's innocent, they proclaim.

But his detractors, including the government, the cops, and the Faulkner family, insist that he is guilty and should have been killed years ago.

Mumia's been litigating this mess for close to 30 years now, through loss after loss. And then, in March 2008, the Third Circuit affirmed his conviction but said his sentencing was unconstitutional and needed to be redone. Everyone was unhappy. Mumia's supporters insisted he should have had his conviction reversed. After all, he was innocent. And his trial was unfair. His detractors were livid that he might not be killed. So both sides asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.

In April last year, the Court refused to hear Mumia's appeal. No new trial. But still, there was that life rather than death sentence. Where there's life there's hope. Who knew what might happen down the road.

Of course, the state had appealed the reversal of the death sentence. But the Court didn't act. The state's appeal languished. And languished. And languished. For nearly a year.

There was another case, out of Ohio, raising a similar similar sentencing issue, Smith v. Spisak. As with the jurors at Mumia's trial, the jurors at Frank Spisak's trial were not told that they did not have to agree unanimously about the existence of mitigating factors before they could be weighed in favor of life. Like the Third Circuit in Mumia's case, the Sixth Circuit reversed Spisak's death sentence. Just as Pennsylvania appealed the circuit court's decision in Mumia's case, so Ohio appealed the circuit court's decision in Spisak's.

Last week, Spisak lost. Today, the Supremes vacated the Third Circuit's decision in Mumia's case and sent it back for reconsideration in light of Spisak.

Another day, another loss.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, which keeps careful records, there are today 3279 men and women (mostly men) on death row in this country. Mumia Abu-Jamal is just one of them, one of 225 in Pennsylvania. Most of them have cases in process in one or another court. And the decisions in those cases, especially the sort of look-at-it-again we're-not-even-bothering-with-an-opinion decision the Court issued today in Mumia's case, get almost no attention outside the local jurisdiction.

The decision in Mumia's case will be noted around the world.

Like I say, I've always been wary of death-row celebrity.

Their supporters ("fan club" is the term Kent Scheidegger used for Mumia's yesterday; one sometimes hears "groupies") claim innocence because they believe all exculpatory evidence and disbelieve all inculpatory. They insist somehow on heroic status. They trumpet too much. And if the case goes south (see Roger Coleman, for instance) it just provides ammunition for the retentionists.

Besides, celebrities are a distraction. Let's be honest about this for a minute.

The vast majority of the people on death row (and nobody knows the percentage) did something at least close to what they are there for. They killed someone. It wasn't justifiable by any reasonable calculus we might use. And there's nothing heroic about them.

They're sad cases: inarticulate, often nearly illiterate, frequently mentally ill, too often still with mental retardation. They were victims as children of physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse. They are, in the words of Ohio's Chief Justice Moyer (alas in dissent) describing one of my former clients, "destined for disaster."

They are the disposable children of disposable families. The dross, the waste

They are - even the smart, talented ones, the ones who love and are loved - they are all damaged goods by the time they get to the row, certainly after they've been there for a while.

These are our clients, those of us who do this work.

Mumia, Stanley "Tookie" Williams, Karla Faye Tucker, Shaka Sankofa: these are the oddities. They suck the energy from the movement. Their exceptionalism belies the reality of the rest. And as Tookie, Karla Faye, and Shaka learned all too well, exceptionalism doesn't save them either. And it doesn't end the killing.

So I've been wary of death-row celebrity.

And yet, Mumia's loss (and it seems clear that death is now for him the almost inevitable outcome) resonates. Not more than the others. Not with the personal force of the loss of one of my own clients or the client of a friend. But in other ways.

His voice has been an affront to the system. His supporters particularly committed to a political struggle on behalf of the dispossessed and downtrodden. He's been the figurehead of a social movement that's larger than death row. That's his weakness as an icon, but his strength, too.

When I was in college, earnest young socialists would come to town, spend the night in my living room writing manifestos and then go to the mills and try to organize the unionized workers. They expected great support. They routinely got the shit beaten out of them by those they saw as their natural allies. Socialist theory goes only so far before it butts up against the stark reality of workers who don't see the world as class struggle.

And so it is for Mumia and his supporters.

They have truths to tell. Big ones about racist society and power and corruption. Smaller ones about unfair trials and cursory rather than substantive judicial review. And questionable ones about, say, factual innocence.

Those are important truths, all of them. But they end up getting muddled around the question of innocence.

Death row is a symptom of social failure. But it's a lousy proxy for it.

Mumia's is a powerful voice crying out against injustice. But he's also just another of the men on the row who ought not be murdered by the government.

There are 3,278 others just like him. Except without the fan club.

Save Mumia. By all means, save him.

But the next man with an execution date (February 4) is Mark Brown, here in Ohio. Nobody much has heard of him. Two of the witnesses against him have recanted their testimony. Yet you see no international outcry. There are no headlines in London or Paris or Rome. Archbishop Tutu hasn't spoken. Bianc Jagger hasn't appeared. The Pope hasn't weighed in.

Save Mumia. But save Mark Brown first.