Well, look at the Free Mumia movement - which is full of crackpots of various stripes, including the hero himself. Granted, he got a raw treatment - but the real issue here is a legal technicality a.k.a "fair trial" not him not committing the act of we he was accused. I think no reasonable person would argue that he did shoot the cop - although his motives, the scenario, and any extenuating circumstances are subject to debate. His own behavior during the trial, and his politics in general were... well cranky. That of course does not mean he deserved death penalty - but that hardly qualifies him as a poster boy for left mobilizing. If it were not for the celebrity cult mentality that permeates US culture (including the left) - nobody would take Mumia's politics seriously.
As far as anti-death penalty mobilizing is concerned, I think there are cases that are far stronger on the factual grounds (e.g. those that prompted Illinois governor to stop executions) - but they are seized by Republicans (such as the governor himself) - who then get political credit - while the self-styled lefties rally behind celebrity crackpots (like Mumia) and further discredit themselves politically. It does not strike me like a very effective strategy of political mobilization, to say the least.
To be certain, I ardently support the right to be a crackpot, and the crackpots' right to express their cranky views and live in a harassment free environment - but that is a much diffrent issue form poltical organizing. Political organizing requires public trust, and public trust is not a matter of right -- it must be earned. And you do not earn it by cranky appearances. In fact, those who destroy their credibility by espousing cranky issues/views and engaging in cranky behavior can blame only themselves for their political marginalisation.
>death penalty has been abolished in every other first world country, and
even
>here it is deeply problematic.
Well, you are comparing apples and oranges. You must look at things in their social context. The US might have the first world military, but it is a third-world society: violent, vindictive, and lacking civility. The cult of violence and the incidence of violent crime is much higher in the US than in the first world countries. So death penalty in the US has a much different position than in the "civilised" first world countries. Granted, it is uncivilised, but it is uncivilised response to uncivilised behavior. It may not be acceptable in the "civilised" countries of Western Europe, but in the US it is commonly perceived as the only response to people who are infatuated by raw power and violence.
An effective claim against death penalty must thus addres the issue of violence in this society, instead of legal technicalities of springing the perpetrators out of the death row. If you have an effective plan to reduce violence - effective here does NOT mean a mere kulturkampf against symbols and instruments of violence and power, such as guns, but capable of changing entrenched values and patterns of thought and behaviour - and a strategy to implement that plan, you can then start rallying against death penalty. Otherwise, anti death penalty stance is like a cry for a disarmament in the middle of a war - it is defeatism. If you are against killing, eliminate the underlying causes of killing, not the intsruments of it.
wojtek