Thoughts on the Jena 6

[Miss P]

What's On Language?

Safire's column in the Times Magazine.  It seemed like something that would float your boat.

It probably would.  Is it online?

Sho' is.  And it's about that tattoo regret thing you posted today, too. Synchronicity.

[Letsgo]

I agree that the Jena Six were not treated fairly, but why has no one mentioned that Mr. Bell has a pretty lengthy criminal record including a battery convinction.  I'm not sure I would consider him a hero; he seems like somewhat of a troublemaker (aside from this case).

[Miss P]

Don't a lot of states do this when alcohol is involved in accidents?

I think only where one statutory definition of second-degree murder is, for instance, killing someone while operating a vehicle under the influence, not where it is reckless homicide.  In Louisiana, btw, there are several other types of homicide that fall under the second-degree murder statute:

A. Second degree murder is the killing of a human being:

(1) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm; or

(2)(a) When the offender is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated rape, forcible rape, aggravated arson, aggravated burglary, aggravated kidnapping, second degree kidnapping, aggravated escape, assault by drive-by shooting, armed robbery, first degree robbery, second degree robbery, simple robbery, cruelty to juveniles, second degree cruelty to juveniles, or terrorism, even though he has no intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.

(b) When the offender is engaged in the perpetration of cruelty to juveniles, even though he has no intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.

(3) When the offender unlawfully distributes or dispenses a controlled dangerous substance listed in Schedules I or II of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law which is the direct cause of the death of the recipient who ingested or consumed the controlled dangerous substance.

(4) When the offender unlawfully distributes or dispenses a controlled dangerous substance listed in Schedules I or II of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law to another who subsequently distributes or dispenses such controlled dangerous substance which is the direct cause of the death of the person who ingested or consumed the controlled dangerous substance.

[Miss P]

I agree that the Jena Six were not treated fairly, but why has no one mentioned that Mr. Bell has a pretty lengthy criminal record including a battery convinction.  I'm not sure I would consider him a hero; he seems like somewhat of a troublemaker (aside from this case).

I don't think anyone here has referred to him as a hero.

[Letsgo]

I agree that the Jena Six were not treated fairly, but why has no one mentioned that Mr. Bell has a pretty lengthy criminal record including a battery convinction.  I'm not sure I would consider him a hero; he seems like somewhat of a troublemaker (aside from this case).

I don't think anyone here has referred to him as a hero.

Are you illiterate?  MBW stated, "Spencer Overton,at Black Prof, argues at least one of the Jena 6 is definitely a hero.  I tend to agree."  It's one of the first posts on this thread.

[Miss P]

Are you illiterate?  MBW stated, "Spencer Overton,at Black Prof, argues at least one of the Jena 6 is definitely a hero.  I tend to agree."  It's one of the first posts on this thread.

Take it down a notch.  I missed a post.

ETA: Now I've read the post in question (which I did, actually, skip the first time I read the thread).   I think that was using "hero" in a pretty specific context of his refusal to take a plea -- one in which his criminal record actually made his decision more courageous.  I don't think it was a general sense of "this kid is a role model or future civil rights leader." 

[Letsgo]

Are you illiterate?  MBW stated, "Spencer Overton,at Black Prof, argues at least one of the Jena 6 is definitely a hero.  I tend to agree."  It's one of the first posts on this thread.

Take it down a notch.  I missed a post.

Then, next time, read ALL the posts before you make a comment.  

[Smokey]

Regardless, the general point remains that the scope of this discussion has not been whether or not the boys are heros, but whether or not they were treated appropriately by the court.

Well, I don't think many people on this thread disagree with this point (that they weren't treated appropriately) and neither do I.

I only take issue with the people who refer to them as "heroes" and act as though they're modern civil rights leaders.  I guess there's something to be said for not settling so that you can get a shorter sentence, but they're only in this predicament to begin with because they ganged up on one of their classmates.  You're not a "hero" just because you commit a crime and you're charged with an unduly severe crime that you refuse to plead guilty to.  I mean... seriously.  Aside from my general aversion to violence, a group of people attacking one person is just cowardly.  I really don't see what there is about these boys to rally around.

I do understand the general civil rights/equal protection issues and that's fine.  As I said before, my problem is with the people who want to make heroes out of these kids.  I guess my point is that the DA's office should be condemned for the botching of this case, but the Jena 6 should not be congratulated for being victims of this.

I've also seen some people suggest (or at least imply) that this was a legitimate form of civil disobedience, that is that they were right to do this because of the racism they'd experienced at school, especially the noose incident and that this was their way of "fighting back.".  I know no one on this board has said this though and I trust that everyone on this board is intelligent enough that I don't need to go into why this argument is ridiculous.

I also said this earlier, but if there was a black kid using anti-Jewish slurs or something and a group of Jewish kids jumped him and beat him until he was unconscious, I'm pretty sure black leaders would be demanding that the Jewish kids receive the most severe penalty possible.  And I think in that case they might run into even more serious issues, possibly hate crime charges.  I mean... you can't have it both ways.  You should stand up for what's right, regardless of what color the victims/perps happen to be.

[lollypotter]

Cady - this isn't a one off case. There are direct comparisons with the treatment of the other cases in Jena. Apparently, in Jena, in 2007, hanging nooses isn't racial harassment but 'boys will be boys' schoolyard pranks, wrestling a gun away when it is pulled on you is 'theft' and a schoolyard fight is attempted murder.

I don't think people in the main are calling them heroes but the problem is when other bodies, who are sworn to protect without bias, decide to better the criminals in disgraceful behaviour. 

EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean Cady, meant letsgo

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

The whole "heroes" debate is ancillary to the main point at issue here - the injustice perpetrated against 6 black students by the state of Louisiana via the Jena Prosecutor.  As lollypotter and Cady pointed out, there were several points at which the local authorities had a chance to do the right thing with this case, and each time they went the other way.  Especially the DA.  

I don't believe that the Jena 6 should be set free unless an impartial jury determines otherwise.  For those of the Jena 6 that participated (because there are reports that not all 6 kids actually hit the victim) - they beat somebody up, which is a battery.  They need to stand trial for battery.  However, DA Walters' prosecution (or lack thereof) of all the incidents surrounding this case has been suspect at best.  Any prosecutor allowing such prejudice to influence his or her administration of the law needs to be removed from office and disbarred.  See examples below:


"Prosecutors are expected to be impartial in the sense that charging decisions should be based upon the evidence, without discrimination or bias for or against any groups or individuals. Yet, at the same time, they are expected to prosecute criminal offenses with zeal and vigor within the bounds of the law and professional conduct.” See State v. Culbreath, 30 S.W.3d 309, 314 (Tenn. 2000)

"The [Prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).

A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice whose duty is to seek justice rather than merely to advocate for the State’s victory at any given cost. See State v. Superior Oil, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tenn. 1994).

Massameno v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 234 Conn. 539, 663 A.2d 317 (1995) (holding that an attorney violated Rule 3.8(1) by prosecuting the case without probable cause to believe the defendant was guilty).