Female Rebellion In Aurora Leigh and The Lady in the...

Female Rebellion In Aurora Leigh and The Lady in the Looking-Glass Women of both the ages of Victorian and early Modernism were restricted from education at universities or the financial independence of professionalism. In both ages, women writers often rebelled against perceived female expectations as a result of their oppression. To lead a solitary life as a subservient wife and mother was not satisfactory for writers like Elizabeth Barrett Browning and Virginia Woolf. One of the most popular female poets of the Victorian era, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, illustrated a womans struggle to achieve artistic and economical independence in modern society (Longman P.1858). Many Victorian critics were shocked by Barrett†¦show more content†¦She compares her aunts life to A sort of cage-bird life and views her own rebellion toward the expected role as A wild bird scarcely fledged (P.1866-1867, Ll.305, 311). Auroras aunt tries teaching the role of Victorian women with books dictating if women do not think at all, they may teach thinki ng(P.1869, L. 427). One of the only rights of thinking given to women, was their right to comprehend their husbands (P. 1869, L. 431). The limited rights were not satisfactory for Aurora, who finds a savior to oppression of intellect through poetry. Rebelling against the limited lite rature available, her soul is At poetrys divine first finger-touch, / Let go of convictions and sprang up surprised (P.1872, L.L 850-851). Through Auroras rebellion, she found sanctity in educating herself with poetry. More hardened towards rebellion is the modern character of Isabella; a wealthy spinster who bought this house and collected with her own hands (P.2454), a new concept for women in the age of Modernism. The fact that Isabella has remained unmarried can be thought of as rebellion towards the repression of womens education, world travel and financial freedom of the previous of the still fresh Victorian era. With a husband, Isabella may not of been able to keep these freedoms. Th e speaker views Isabellas freedom from a man as twenty times more passion and experience than those that loves are

How Asatru Is A Religion That Has Close Ties With Norse...

Asatru is a religion that has close ties with Norse mythology. The name of the religion, Asatru, is a twofold word that gets it’s meaning from Old Norse. The first half of the word, Asa, means Gods and Goddesses and the second half Tru, means to have faith or belief in. Altogether Asatru means to have faith in the gods. Asatru can be considered part of the Neo-pagan family of religion since it has to do with Norse Heathenism. The beginning of Asatru was not the start of the religion itself yet a revival of an older religion. Before Asatru there was the Nordic religion. This religion was practiced before Christianity came around. The Nordic religion is thousands of years old and its beginnings are lost in prehistory. Yet, it is associated with the age of Vikings. Ancient Asatru and Modern Asatru is a folk or tribal religion. In the 20th century an Icelandic sheep farmer named Sveinbjà ¶rn Beinteinsson created an Asatru organization. The proper term for it is, à slenska à satrà ºarfà ©lagià ° which translates to Icelandic fellowship of Aesir faith. Beinteinsson even petitioned for Asatru to be a recognized religion in the early 1970s. After about a year of petitioning, Asatru became a known religion in Iceland. Coincidentally, around the same time the organization was created in Iceland, there were communities forming in the United States and in the United Kingdom. However, these three communities didn’t know of each other. According to www.religionfacts.com, â€Å"This is a sign that

Do women still face a glass ceiling in employment Free Essays

Abstract The following study focuses on the problem of gender inequality in employment. While general employment opportunities for women has significantly improved over the past decades, many scholars and researchers argue that women still meet obstacles with regard to being promoted into top-level management positions. Such barriers to women’s career progressions are popularly known as the glass ceiling. We will write a custom essay sample on Do women still face a glass ceiling in employment? or any similar topic only for you Order Now The following research seeks evidence of the glass ceiling on the global labour market by an in-depth analysis of relevant statistics and data on gender inequality. The research revealed that indeed, the glass ceiling still exists on the labour market. Women are strongly underrepresented in management-level positions. Additionally, female executives are paid lower wages compared to their male counterparts. The glass ceiling is largely a consequence of insufficient government efforts towards breaking the glass ceiling as well as of masculine corporate culture that often do not support women’s individual development. Introduction Historically, women were facing disadvantages in all spheres of life including health, education, politics and the labour market. Over the past decades, international bodies took steps to tackle the problems of gender inequality and women’s empowerment. In 2000, the United Nations listed gender equality amongst its Millennium Development Goals to be achieved by 2015. UNICEF constantly develops new programmes aiming at equitable education access for girls and boys so that they have equal career opportunities (UNICEF, 2012). In turn, in 2010 the EU established the European Institute for Gender Equality focused on eliminating sex discrimination and protecting women’s rights in the member states (Purcell et.al., 2006). Without doubts, these steps brought numerous benefits to women. The enrollment ratio of girls to boys in primary and secondary education is equivalent to 97.2 (2010), while the female labour participation rate, measured as a percentage of all females ages 15 and above, reaches 51.2% (2011). Also the gender pay gap has gradually narrowed (World Bank, 2012). While the women’s situation on the labour market improved, they still face significant challenges with regard to career advancement to senior executive positions. According to the consulting company, Accenture, women share only insignificant proportion of senior level positions. Moreover, female senior executives are paid lower wages than male senior official. This phenomenon relates to both the developing world as well as the most advanced economies such as the US, the UK and Australia. In turn, the World Economic Forum revealed that the world’s largest employers fail to establish optimal environment for womenâ€℠¢s professional development (The World Economic Forum, 2010). These facts suggest that the gender glass ceiling, the invisible barrier to women’s career advancement, still exist on global labour market, preventing women from promotions to senior level positions. The aim of this research is to seek evidence of the glass ceiling on the contemporary labour market. First, the essay briefly discusses the concept of the glass ceiling. Second, it demonstrates evidence of the gender ceiling based on selected international and national studies on gender inequalities. Finally, the essay concludes key findings and presents policy recommendations. The glass ceiling The term â€Å"glass ceiling† was used for the first time in 1984 by the editor of Working Women magazine, who states that â€Å"Women have reached a certain point –I call it the glass ceiling – in the top of middle management and they’re stopping and getting stuck† (Boyd, 2012, p.1). However, the official definition was introduced in 1991 by the US Department of Labour. The glass ceiling was described as â€Å"artifice barriers based on attitudinal or organizational bias that prevent qualified individuals from advancing upward in their organization into management-level positions†[1] (Boyd, 2012, p.2). Cotter et.al. (2001) postulate that the glass ceiling cannot be used to describe all forms of gender inequalities in employment. He proposes four criteria that help defining this phenomenon. First, the glass ceiling can be acknowledged if gender inequalities cannot be proved by other job-related features of employee such as education, experien ce or skills because these features are the same for female and male employees. Second, the glass ceiling can be assumed if the degree of gender inequalities at management level is higher than such the degree for non-managerial and nonprofessional positions. In case gender inequalities are the same at all different employment levels, a â€Å"common pattern of gender inequality† (Cotter et.al., 2001, p.4) is observed rather than the glass ceiling. Third, the glass ceiling does not refer only to the current shares of female and male representatives in the executive boards, but also to potential promotions within a particular time period. The authors explain that current proportions largely reflect previous conditions. For instance, if women decide to leave jobs more often than men due to expected poor career opportunities, automatically more men will be in the executive board even if promotion rate were even. Fourth, the glass ceiling is strongly related to career trajectories . Gender inequality grows with career advancement – at higher career level women face more discrimination cases than at lower career levels[2] (Cotter et.al., 2001). The concept of the glass ceiling has often been criticized. The opponents argue that in practice the glass ceiling does not exist. Women face career barriers due to their own choices such as childbearing or family responsibilities. These decisions have an impact on lower wages and delayed career advancement. Thus, the institutional and structural settings cannot be blamed for gender inequalities at work (Boyd, 2012). Also Simpson and Altman (2000) argue that the traditional concept of the glass ceiling needs to be reinterpreted. Their studies revealed that young women are equally treated to their male counterparts in terms of career advancement and wages. However, career development is more challenging for elder women who are often refused promotions. Thus, the glass ceiling is punctured. The authors also postulate that the glass ceiling appears more commonly at top management level, at which men are more likely to be promoted. Thus, the glass ceiling should be seen as time bounded. Evidence of the glass ceiling in employment While gender inequalities are strongly visible in developing countries, advanced economies are characterized by almost equal access to education and employment for women and men. In this context, the fact that women are strongly underrepresented in the senior executive management constitutes perhaps the best proof of existing glass ceiling. Numerous international and national studies seem to undertake the glass ceiling topic, seeking evidence of its presence in employment. Following the Grant Thornton estimations, in 2011 female representatives accounted for 20% of senior management positions globally. These statistics were based on 6,000 interviews with employers in 40 countries. As Appendix 1 shows, there are great disparities with regard to female senior management positions amongst the countries. Russia, Botswana and the Philippines are characterized by the highest rates of women in senior management. Surprisingly, the world’s most advanced economies such as the US, the UK or Germany have the rates falling below the global average rate. These figures indicate that in spite of available financial resources, the most advanced economies do not give a priority to women’s empowerment and their career development and thus, also do not constitute a role model for developing world in this area (GrantThornton, 2012). Another cross-national research on employment equality was conducted by the consulting company, Accenture in 2006. The study included 590 executives from six countries (UK, Australia, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Philippines). Research provided solid evidence of the glass ceiling in these countries. First, in 2006 women accounted for between 39-46% of the total labour force. At the same time, they represented from 4% (Switzerland) to 13% (Austria) of senior executive roles. Additionally, female managers were on average paid 79% of men’s salaries. Accenture also prepared the Global Glass Ceiling Index informing how thick the glass ceiling is with regard to three areas: individual (professional competence and ambitions, career planning); company (transparent promotion process, training programmes and mentoring); society (equal career opportunities, government policy on women’s rights). As Appendix 2 shows, the glass ceiling existed in all countries, but also in all three researched areas. Governments were mainly responsible for the thickness of the glass ceiling. The interviewees argued that government legislation did not support adequately women’s career development. The interviewees also admitted that corporate mentoring and coaching programmes were not designed to meet women’s needs and thus, did not facilitate women’s career development. Overall, employers were more committed to gender equality than national governments (Accenture, 2006). Additional evidence of the glass ceiling can be gathered from the Corporate Gender Report 2010, prepared by the World Economic Forum. The research included 100 largest employers from the OECD countries and the BRIC countries. The research revealed that the majority of women in these companies performed entry- or middle-level roles, while on average 5% of female employees held the CEO-level positions. This report also identified general norms and culture in researched countries as well as masculine corporate culture as two key barriers to women’s advancement to senior leadership. Finally, the report informed that 18% of companies did not monitor salary differences between women and men, while other 15% established salary tracking policies but did not implement corrective measures. It suggests that a significant proportion of companies do not treat gender pay gap as a sign of women’s discrimination (Zahidi and Ibarra, 2010). While the above-presented studies provide solid evidence of existing glass ceiling, it is crucial to briefly discuss a country-level analysis conducted by Ernst and Young. It is one of the most recent analyses of the glass ceiling (2012), which reveals new information on the phenomenon and adds value to this research. The survey included 1,000 adult women in the UK who jointly agreed that the glass ceiling was present on the British labour market face. More importantly, women argued that the concept of a single ceiling to enter the senior executive board was outdated, as they experienced multiple barriers throughout their career development. Ernst and Young defined four major challenges for women, namely motherhood, age, qualifications and experience as well as lack of role models. Not only can these barriers affect women at any time throughout their careers, but all of them (or a few of them) can appear at the same time. It proves again that women are constantly disadvantaged with regard to career advancement (Woods, 2012). While the glass ceiling is confirmed by numerous analyses, some researchers come to very different conclusions on this phenomenon. This fact needs to be emphasized. For instance, the study of the US labour market conducted by Gayle et.al. (2009) revealed that women were more successful than men in terms of career development. Women were equally likely to be promoted as their male counterparts. Surprisingly, women were more likely to be promoted within the internal structures rather than by receiving an outside offer. Female executive tended to earn slightly higher wages than men. The authors explained visible gender inequalities in the executive market by â€Å"unobserved factors† (Gayle, 2009, p.28) such as tough unrewarding assignments, high competition, or indignities that are characterized for the senior management environment and that discourage women from climbing the career ladder. In case of women performing executive duties, these factors encouraged them to early reti rement. Interesting findings also come from the aforementioned research conducted by Simpson and Altman (2001) on the British market. The glass ceiling affected elder women’s careers; however, it did not impact young women under 35. Young female generation was raised assuming that gender equality was their natural right, given at birth. Due to this perception and career-oriented minds, they are perceived by the employers as ‘high flyers’ (Simpson and Altman, 2001, p.195) rather than as women – they are treated equally to men in terms of career advancement. However, as women establish new priorities later in their lives (i.e. family), the employers see them again as women. Thus, their career promotion becomes more challenging at this later stage. Conclusion To conclude, the following research provided solid proofs that the gender glass ceiling still exists in employment across the globe. Not only women represent less than 20% of senior management roles globally, but they are also paid lower wages for performing executive duties compared to their male counterparts. The analyses conducted by Accenture and the World Economic Forum prove that the government policies seem to be significant obstacles to eliminating the glass ceiling in employment. The governments do not pay enough attention to equal career opportunities for men and women and they constantly fail to develop adequate policies to facilitate women’s advancement. Also companies seem to challenge women’s development in their workplace. The companies are typically characterized by a masculine corporate culture. They often fail to establish salary tracking systems and to correct wages disparities. Finally, the mentoring and coaching programmes offered by the companies a re often inadequate to women’s individual needs and block their potential development. It is worth adding that the most recent analysis, conducted by Ernst and Young, reveals that currently women face multiple challenges in career advancement rather than a single ceiling. These multiple barriers often appear at the same time what seem to make women’s career progression more questionable. In order to tackle the problem of the glass ceiling, the following policy recommendations were drawn: The companies need to be forced to take equal career development issues seriously. Norway seems to be a good example to be followed. Norwegian companies are required to have 40% women in their management board. While such a percentage is quite challenging for most countries, setting lower but obligatory quotas is expected to work well. The companies should also be encouraged to create own lists of good practice with a particular focus on women’s needs. Such companies can become role models, inspiring other companies to take similar actions, what is expected to result in improved working conditions for women. Targeted actions should be implemented. Industrial and professional associations should actively challenge unfair practices and policies to provide better career opportunities for women (Purcell et.al., 2006). List of references Accenture (2006). The anatomy of glass ceiling. [online] Available from: http://www.accenture.com/at-de/Documents/PDF/TheGlassCeiling.pdf (Accessed on 28.11.2012). Boyd K.S. (2012). Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society: Glass Ceiling. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 549-552. Cotter D.A., Hermsen J.M., Ovadia S. and Vanneman R. (2001). The Glass Ceiling Effect. Social Forces. 80(2), pp. 655-682. Gayle G.L., Golan L. and Miller, R. (2009). Are there glass ceilings for female executivesPittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University. Grant Thornton (2012). Grant Thornton International Business Report. Women in senior management: still not enough. London: Grant Thornton International Limited. Purcell K., Elias P. and Wilton, N. (2006). Looking through the glass ceiling: a detailed investigation into the factors that contribute to gendered career inequalities. Coventry: Warwick Institute for Employment Research. Simpson R. and Altman Y. (2000). The time bounded glass ceiling and young women managers: career progress and career success – evidence from the UK. Journal of European Industrial Training. 24(2). Pp. 190-198. UNICEF (2012). Basic education and gender equality [online database] Available from: http://www.unicef.org/ (Accessed on 28.11.2012). Woods D. (2012). Glass ceiling is ‘outdated’, Ernst and Young survey of 1,000 women reveals. [online] Available from: http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/news/1074417/glass-ceiling-outdated-ernst-young-survey-women-reveals (Accessed on 28.11.2012). World Bank (2012). The World Development Indicators. [online database] Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator (Accessed on 28.11.2012). Zahidi S. and Ibbara H. (2010). The Corporate Gender Gap Report 2010. Geneva: World Economic Forum. How to cite Do women still face a glass ceiling in employment?, Essay examples

Mumia Abu Jamal Essay Example For Students

Mumia Abu Jamal Essay Wesley Cook was born in 1954. While he was protesting at a George Wallace forpresident rally in 1968, several white men attacked him. He claims that two mengrabbed him. One kicked his face and skull, while the other kicked him in thegroin. As the beating progressed, he looked up and saw the two-tonedgold-trimmed pant leg of a Philadelphia police officer. He yelled for thepolice, who saw him on the ground being beaten to a pulp. A police officermarched over briskly, and kicked him in the face.1 I have been thankful tothat faceless cop ever since, for he kicked me straight into the Black PantherParty.2 Wesley Cook became a founding member of the Black Panther PartysPhiladelphia chapter in 1969 at the age of 15. After joining mainstream newsorganizations in the 1970s, Wesley Cook changed his name to Mumia Abu-Jamal. As a teenage journalist, Jamal took an interest in stories about policebrutality. Jamal was known to be a rare talent of radio journalism. He had apowerful intellect and a burning empathy for poor people. He was known as askillful interviewer and became a well-known figure in local broadcastingjournalism. Jamal appeared on National Public Radio, the National Black Network,and local Philadelphia stations including WUHY-FM (now WHYY). He had a lot ofadmiring friends in journalism and politics, and had no prior record of crime orviolence. Despite his personal experience of police brutality and years as ateenage Black Panther, he kept his noise clean even under the microscope of theFBI and Philadelphia police surveillance. By the late 1970s, Jamal was alsoan ardent sympathizer and supporter of MOVE a black militantantiestablishment, antipolice group. He started wearing his hair in longdreadlocks like a MOVE member. By mid 1981, Jamals growing obsession withMOVE had compromised his standi ng as a journalist and cost him his job at WUHY. He started freelancing his writing skills, while moonlighting as a cabdriver. Hewas robbed while on duty with his cab, so he started to carry a gun. 3 Duringthis time, the Philadelphia Police Department was so notorious for violence andpolice brutality, that the United States Justice Department, in an unprecedented1979 civil suit, charged then mayor (and former police commissioner) Frank Rizzoand the top police brass with encouraging rampant police brutality, racism,and lying. This suit was later dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.4 OnDecember 9, 1981, Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner was shot to death. On July 3, 1982 Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of Officer Faulkners murder andsentenced to death. Beyond these two facts, there are a number of versions ofthe incidents that lead to Mumia Abu-Jamals conviction. This paper willreview the incidents of December 9, 1981 and show that Mumia Abu-Jamal was notprovided a fair and impartial trial by his peers, and was wrongly convicted andsentenced for the death of Officer Faulkner. What the Jury Heard: On December 9,1981, at 3:51 a.m. Officer Faulkner stopped Mr. William Cook (Jamalsbrother), who was driving a Volkswagen Beetle for a traffic violation, on thesouth side of Locust Street about 80 feet east of 13th Street. The area at thetime was known for its seediness. The area had many late-night bars, nightclubs,cafes, and streetwalkers. Officer Faulkner radioed his location and then added:On second thought, send me a wagon.5 He was apparently planning to arrestMr. Cook or someone in Mr. Cooks car for an unknown reason. According to twoprose cution witnesses, both Faulkner and Cook got out of their cars. Faulknerspread-eagled Mr. Cook across one of the cars and then suddenly turned andslugged Officer Faulkner. Faulkner responded by clubbing Cook several times withhis 17-inch flashlight. Mr. Cooks face and neck were bloody when policearrived. By coincidence, Mumia Abu-Jamal was parked in his cab and came out of aparking lot on the northeast corner of Locust and 13th. He accelerated from awalk to a run as he charged toward Officer Faulkner across Locust Street. It wasnever fully disclosed at the trial, why Jamals cab was parked nearby. He justhappened to be around. In any event, this is when the point blank shootingstarted to occur. According to the prosecutions theory, Jamal ran up behindOfficer Faulkner to within one foot, and shot him in the back. The woundedFaulkner turned around and returned fire, hitting Jamal in the chest, andfalling onto his back. Jamal then emptied his gun into Officer Faulkner at closerange, fin ishing him off with a shot between his eyes.6 Less than one-minutelater, police arrived at the scene. The wounded Jamal was sitting on a curb fourfeet from Faulkner, with his empty shoulder holster on and his empty gun nearby. Cook was standing a few feet away against a wall, with what two witnessescalled, a look of shock on his face.7 He allegedly told police that he hadnothing to do with the shooting and was only prosecuted for hitting OfficeFaulkner. On the surface, the prosecution presented a clean theory. Theprosecutions case pointed to a clear legal conclusion that Jamal had committedfirst-degree murder of a police officer with a maximum sentence of death. However, as one examines Mumia Abu-Jamal supposed confession, the publicdefenders lack of experience in capital murder cases, the changing testimony ofthe three eye witnesses, the physical evidence procured at the scene, anddiscrepancies between the officers at the scene, the clean prosecution theorystarts to unravel. The Philadelphia police department themselves could of gone along way to proving Jamals guilt. For example, there was no definitive matchbetween Jamals gun and the bullet that killed Officer Faulkner. The policecould have tested Jamals hands to determine if he had recently fired a gun. The officers on the scene, could of smelled the gun barrel to determine if ithad been recently fired.8 The Philadelphia police failed to go the extra mile inexamining the evidence and in doing so failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubtthat Jamal was guilty and deserved to be sentenced to death. The Confession:Priscilla Durham, a hospital security guard and Officer Gary Bell (Faulknersformer partner and best friend) both swore that they heard Jamal, as he waslying on the floor of the hospital emergency room defiantly shout: I shot themother*censored*er, and I hope the mother*censored*er dies.9 Jamal contendsthis confession was fabricated. The confession was allegedly shouted inthe emergency room while he was being detained by fifteen or so Philadelphiapolice officers. In fact, none of the officers present mentioned Jamalsconfession in their police reports or interviews over the next few months. Not a word of the confession found its way into any police report formore than two months.10 Furthermore, it is very peculiar that an intelligent manwhose livelihood depended on articulate communication would spontaneously andflamboyantly incriminates himself. Priscilla Durham first mentioned Jamalsconfession to police investigators in a February 9, 1982 interview, 62days after the shooting. She claimed that she mentioned the confession tohospital investigators the day after the murder, which was, written down byhand. Prosecutor McGill seemingly surprised, claimed to have never seen thereport. While Ms. Durham was on the witness stand during the trial, an unsigned,unauthenticated, typewritten piece of paper dated December 10, 1981 was read tothe jury and admitted as evidence against Jamal. 11 Officer Gary Bell made nomention of Jamals confession in his reports after the shooting. It wasnot until 78 days later that Officer Bell remembered the confession. OfficerBell explained that he was so devastated by seeing Officer Faulkner with hisface almost blown off that he did not remember the confession. 12 Due to theineffectiveness of Jamals defense lawyer and the bias of Judge Sabo (thepresiding judge) the jury never heard any exculpatory evidence. Officer GaryWakshul, who was in the paddy wagon that took Jamal from the scene to JeffersonHospital, reported later that morning that we stayed with the male atJefferson until we were relieved. During this time, the Negro male made nocomments.13 Did Officer Wakshul not hear the confession, or did he step awayfor a minute and miss it? While interviewing Officer Wakshul on charges ofpolice brutality by Jamal, Officer Wakshul issued a new statement, 64 days afterthe murder (February 11, 1982). Officer Wakshul now claimed to hear the entireconfession loud and clear. When asked by the interviewer to explain his initialreport, Officer Wakshul said that the statement disgusted me, and I did notrealize it had any importance until today.14 Judge Albert Sabo Jamalsdefense team and supporters claim that Judge Sabo has sentenced more people todeath than any other judge in the United States. Therefore, the judge was biasedagainst Jamal from the start, due to the nature of the alledged crime. However,the defense team seeking a re trail, fail to mention the frequent disruptivenature of Mr. Jamal during his trial. The truth is that Judge Sabo has been asitting judge since 1974. During his tenure, he has almost exclusively presidedover capital murder cases. Therefore, if Judge Sabo has presided over morecapital punishment trials than any other sitting judge in the United States, itwould be due to his tenure as a judge not his bias. The fact that more deathpenalties have been issued from Judge Sabos court is not a function of JudgeSabo but of the individual juries in the case. 15 Under the system of justiceused in Pennsylvania, the judge does not sentence the defendant to death. A juryof 12 citizens hear the evidence against the accused and then must decideunanimously to impose the death sentence. In this case, Judge Sabo did notsentence Jamal to death, the racially mixed group of 12 jurors, which Jamalassisted in selecting did. This decision was later upheald by the PennsylvaniaSupreme Court on direct appeal.16 The court transcripts and appeal courtdecisions uphold the fact that Judge Sabo was eminently fair and patient withJamal during his trial. He frequently was disruptive during the trial whichresulted in many delays. One can only imagine how the actions of Jamal duringhis trial adversly influenced the jury as they sat sequestered in a hotel forsix weeks. Judge Sabo defends himself by stating, In the old days we lawyershad a saying: If you have the evidence on your side, argue the evidence. If youhave the law on your side, argue the law. And if you have neither the evidenceor the law on your side, scream like hell. Now the news media has changed thatto read: If you dont have the evidence o r the law on your side: blame thejudge. Who else are you going to blame it on? 17 The Jury: Jamalssupporters and defense team have claimed during the appeal process that the jurywas racially stacked against the defendant, violating his civil rights. Duringthe 1982 trail, Judge Sabo encouraged the defense to note the race of eachprospective juror so it could become part of the public record. Unfortunatly,the defense failed to do so. Therefore there is no record to confirm or supporthow many prospective jurors for the 1982 trail were black and of that number,how many of the prosecutions fifteen preemptory challenges to excuse jurors wereused against eligible black jurors. This is unfortunate since during this partof the trial, Mr. Jamal was acting as his own attorney during the selectionprocess. Having demanded to represent himself, Jamal assumed the responsibilityof asking prospective juror what their race was and noting it in the writing ofthe record. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has reviewed the evidence and ruledthat Jamals civil rights were upheld. The facts clearly show that at thebeginning of the trial, 3 or the 12 jurors seated were black. When one of theblack jurors, Ms. Jenny Dawley, violated sequestration to attend to a sick cat,the defense as well as the prosecution agreed to her removal. The defense claimsthat the judge provided a white juror special arrangements who needed to take acivil service exam, and was not as flexible for the Ms. Dawley. The factsclearly indicate that the white juror had asked the judges permission prior totaking the test. Ms. Dawley did not communicate with the judge or any courtofficers regarding her cat. Ms. Dawley while under sequesture at the hotel ,simply chose to go and take care of her cat. She was told by the court that shecould not just leave, and responded per the public record, I dont carewhat Judge Sabo or anybody says, I do what I have to do, nobody is going to stopme. Ms Dawley chose to violate her sequestra tion without asking the judge toaccommodate her personal needs. The record also shows that both the defense andprosecution agreed to her dismissal. In short, the 1982 jury that Mr. Jamalhelped select was properly selected and seated. The racial mix of the jury wasalmost identical to that of Philadelphia at the time. The prosecution had four(4) preemptory challenges left when the jury was finally seated. If theprosecution had desired, they could of used these remaining challenges toexclude the three black jurors that were seated. The court transcripts verifythat each of the jurors dismissed by the prosecution were dismissed for validnon-racial reasons. 18 The Witnesses Both the defense and prosecution have alitany of witnesses. Over the years, many of these witnesses have changed theirstories. A few of the witnesses have filed sworn affidavits that the policecoerced them into making false statements to support the prosecutions claims. The Loss Of A Concussion Recovery Time EssayThe defense claims that Mr. Chobert was driving his taxi without a valid driverslicense and that the Assistant DA Mr. McGill had an agreement with Mr. Chobertthat he would arrange to get his license back in return for favorable testimony. Mr. Chobert confirmed during his 1996 testimony that back in 1982, he did askthe DA on how he could get his license back. Thirteen years after the shootingand testimony of Mr. Chobert, he still does not have his drivers license backdue to his limited source of funds, but has been allowed to continue driving ataxi cab. Four individuals, Michael Scanlon, Cynthia White, Robert Harkins, andAlbert Magelton all provided testimony for the prosecution. All four witnesseswere unquestionably present during the shooting, eyewitnesses to the murder, andhave been deemed credible by the court. Michael Scanlon was visitingPhiladelphia from out of state and was sitting in his car at the intersection of13th and Locust and witnessed the entire murder, beginning to end. Mr. Scanlon testified extensively at the 1982 trail and confirmed that William Cookattacked Officer Faulkner. He went on to testify that the officer reacted to Mr. Cooks attack trying to subdue Mr. Cook. As this was going on, another mancame running out from the parking lot across the street towards the officer andMr. Cook in front of the police car. Mr. Scanlon saw Jamals hand raise andheard a gunshot. Then the officer fell down on the sidewalk and Mr. Jamal walkedover and shot the officer two additional times at point blank range. Anotherprostitute working Locust street that night was Cynthia White. Ms. Whitetestified that she was across the street in the parking lot when I noticedMr. Jamal running out of the lot and practically on the curb when he shot twotimes at Officer Faulkner in the back. The officer turned around and staggeredand seened like he was grabbing for something but fell. Then Jamal came on topof the officer and shot him some more. After it was all over, Jamal sloucheddown and sat on the curb. Credible Eyewitness Albert Magelton was a pedestrianwalking across the intersection of 13th and Locust approximatley twenty yardsfrom t he shooting. While testifying in 1982 to what he had witnessed Mr. Magelton stated, I noticed the gentleman (Jamal) coming from the parking lot. He was moving across the street towards where the officer had stopped theVolkswagen. I heard shots and I did not see the Officer any more. I proceededback across the street to see what happened to the Officer. And then, as I wasmoving across the street, I looked to where I heard the shots. When I got to thepavement, I looked down and saw the Officer lying there. I did not see the othergentleman (Jamal) until I moved up closer and saw him sitting on the curb.Under oath in 1982, when asked by Assistant D.A. Joe McGil what the police didwith the man who was sitting on the curb next to the dead Officer. Mr. Mageltonresponded that they handcuffed Jamal and put him in the wagon. One of theofficers on the scene then took Mr. Magelton over to the wagon and asked him ifthis was the gentleman that he had seen coming across the street. Mr. Mageltonconfirmed his story under oath and there is no evidense that the defense of Mr. Jamal has ever challenged his testimony. Mr Robert Harkins was another cabdriver placed immediately across the street from the crime scene. Like Mr. Chobert, Mr. Harkins was very close to the actual shooting and witnessed theentire crime. Mr. Harkins gave a statement to the officers on the sceneconfirming the prosecutions theory. In his statement from 1981, Mr Harkins saidthat, I looked over and observed a police officer grab a guy, the guy spunaround and the officer went to the ground. He had his hands on the ground andthen rolled over at this point and the male who was standing over the officerpointed a gun at the officer and fired one shot and then he fired a second shot. At this time the officer moved a little and then went flat to the ground. Iheard a total of three shots and saw what appeared to be three flashes from thegun of the man standing over the officer. Despite this fact, Mr. Harkins isin the unique position of having neither the defense nor prosecution call him totestify at the 1982 trial. However, Mr. Harkins was asked by the defense totestify at the 1995 appeal trial. Mr. Harkins stated under oath during the 1995trial that he had been repeatedly harassed by Mr. Jamals investigatorsbetween 1990 and July of 1995. He went on to say, that there were many peoplethat came around, many different people that would go to my place of work, andthen call me at my home. Each time Mr. Harkins refused to talk to the defenseteam. Finally after thirteen years of keeping his silence, Mr. Harkinsfinally sucummed to the defenses pressure and agreed to give a statement toone of Mr. Jamals investigators. After he gave his statement the defense teamcontinued t o contact him. Under oath in the 1995 trial, Mr. Harkins explainedthat each time I would say something to the defense, they would come backwith something different than what I said. I dont like that. Regarding thewitnesses of this trial, it is clear that four prosecution witnesses: Scanlon,White, Chobert, and Magelton, all gave virtually the exact same testimony. Furthermore, the man that defense witness Harkins describes as having shotOfficer Faulkner and then sat down on the curb, who was later apprehended bypolice was Munia Abu-Jamal. Witness credability is a major factor in this case. There are four eyewitnesses for the defense that claim there was a third personat the scene of the crime or a passenger in the Volkswagen? Pamela JenkinsCynthia White was a key witness for the prosecution, due to the fact that shewas the only witness who testified to seeing Jamal with a gun in his hands. Noother witness claims to have seen Jamal with a gun. It should also be notedCynthia White has disappeared and can not be found by the defense. No otherwitness the morning of the shooting can recall seeing her that morning. It seemsthat only the prosecution and the Philadelphia police now of Cynthia Whitesexact whereabouts. Following Jamals conviction, Ms. White continued to workthe streets under police protection. She was arrested many times after the trialand all charges were dismissed, or a plea bargain was worked out. Pamela Jenkinsrecently came forward for the defense. Apparently, Ms. Jenkins was working as aprostitute that night and knew Cynthia White very well. Ms. Jenkins als o knew anumber of Philadelphia police officrs at the time and was dating Officer ThomasRyan. Ms. Jenkins has provided a sworn statement that Officer Ryan asked her totestify against Jamal and to falsely identify Mumia as the shooter, in spite ofthe fact she wasnt even present during the shooting. Her statement went on tosay that Officer Ryan paid her $150 to help Ms. White and that the police putpressure on Ms. White to lie at the Mumia trial. Is Ms. Jenkins testimony andstatement credible after all these years? It appears the government has used Ms. Jenkins as a star witness in a police corruption case in Philadelphia. At thattrial, Ms. Jenkins revealed how the Philadelphia police used her to providefraudulent evidence to obtain a murder conviction against Raymond Carter. Ms. Jenkins testified that Officer Thomas Ryan paid her $500 to testify againstCarter.