Death: The Poor's 'Perogative'? 
by Mumia Abu-Jamal 
March 13, 1996 

"That's what 'capital punishment' really means - those that ain't got the capital, get the punishment" - old saying  

Once again we see the inherent truths that lie in the proverbs of the poor.  

That old saying echoed when it was recently announced that the District Attorney of Delaware County, Patrick Meehan, would *not* seek the death penalty in the case of John E. DuPont, the wealthy corporate heir charged with the shooting death of Olympic champion David Schultz, in late January. The Delaware Co. D.A.'s office said no aggravated circumstance justifying the death sentence existed!  

Could it be that DuPont's personal wealth, estimated at over $400 million, was a factor?  

In one fell swoop, the state insured that while millionaires may be murderers, they are not eligible for that preserve of the poor, America's death row.  

As the case of O.J. Simpson showed us, the state is very selective in who it chooses to include in its macabre club of death. O.J., a *bona fide* celebrity, corporate pitchman, sports legend, and millionaire, was deemed, even though a suspect in a double- murder, not "fit" for a death sentence.  

So, whether or not one is of the opinion that Mr. Simpson was either innocent or guilty, the point remains that before the trial actually began, the D.A. of Los Angeles decided - no death penalty for O.J.!  

Millionaires need not apply. As it was for Mr. Simpson, so it was for Mr. DuPont.  

Simpson's wealth, compared to DuPont's, makes him look like a pauper.  

As for DuPont, consider, if you will, the incredible spectacle of the D.A., with all the identical facts, announcing he (or she) would *not* be seeking the death penalty, if DuPont was *the victim*.  

I'm sure we can all agree that would be impossible.  

Any poor man who slays a wealthy man will have the weight of the system fall on him like a ton of bricks; for a wealthy man, however, who finds himself charged with killing a poor man, the system becomes user-friendly.  

Why should this be so? It's because the system serves the interests of the wealth - it is *their* system!  

In essence, when a poor person comes before the court s/he faces two charges: the 'offense'; and being poor.  

I am not suggesting that Mr. DuPont, or anyone else, for that matter, should be sentenced to death. I am just noting how and why the death sentence is reserved for some, and off limits to others.  

The death sentence remains a 'prerogative' of the poor.