Legal Analysis Of The Jena 6 Scenario

Justice is blind. The old euphemism advocates the necessity of impartiality and objectivity in the courts. Seeing crimes for what they are, violations of the law, and not for what they are made out to be. Take for example the case of the "Jena Six", six black students; beat a white student close to death. The case of the Jena Six started out as a High School brawl, which landed a student in the hospital. After the arrests and arraignments of the perpetrators, this case slowly strayed away from a question of culpability, to a question of "Who will really get justice in the end?" the white racist or the black group of students. This case should not be looked at from the perspective of black vs. white; a crime was committed, it is about guilt vs. innocence. It is about upholding the law of land, and not espousing a knee-jerk reaction because it is the "hip" thing to do. The plight of this small Louisiana town is being exploited from all sides to promote personal agendas. The court will give the Jena Six the fair trial they are entitled to, while remaining apathetic to irrelevant circumstances, however unfortunate and heinous they may be, and focus on the facts and the crime at hand. The case of the Jena Six, many fail to realize that crimes were committed, that they were not justified in their actions, and must answer for their crimes, through the due process of law.

The case of the Jena Six is straightforward, a simple case of one of the Six, getting teased by another student, for getting roughed up at a party. On December 1st, 2006, Robert Bailey Jr, and 5 of his friends show up to a party, attempted to enter said party, are informed that the party is invitation only, and as they are with out invitation, are refused entry. They refused to leave, claiming that they had friends inside the party that invited them; they persisted until a white male stepped in and a fight broke out between Mr. Bailey and the man. A fight broke out and police were called, the police arrested the man and charged him with Battery, and let Mr. Bailey and his friends go, uncharged . December 4h, 2006, a white student, Justin Barker, during a lunch period, heckled one of the Jena Six, Robert Bailey Jr., about the above-mentioned incident. The exact words of the exchange are unknownÐ'--both sides dispute what exactly was said, but it enraged Mr. Bailey. He was so angered by what was said, it drove Mr. Bailey to attack Mr. Barker after lunch. One punch to the back of the head in the school gym, rendering Mr. Barker unconscious, he falls to the ground. Mr. Bailey and 5 other black students viciously attack the unconscious student, stomping and punching. The 6 were later arrested and charged for this brutal crime.

Facts surrounding the crime are cloudy, convoluted to say the least, clouding the long road to justice in Jena. However, with what facts that are clear, several conclusions can be made and are clear under the law: 1) Pursuant to Title 14, Section 2, Subsection B, and Title 14, Sections 33 and 36 of the Revised Statutes of the State of Louisiana, The Jena Six committed Assault and Battery, defined as crimes of violence. 2) Their actions were premeditated and intentional , which pursuant to the RSLa , is grounds for being charged Conspiracy to commit Second Degree Battery . 3) The Six were aware that what they were doing was a crime in the State of Louisiana. Some mitigating circumstances exist, but fail to exonerate the defendants from their crimes. When it comes time to embark on the road to justice, to have the guilty face judgment for their crimes, it is necessary that the courts and the public alike keep an open mind, for the sake of equal protection and treatment under the law. Taking in to consideration all the facts in the case for what they are, not what they are seen to be, as the age-old euphemism goes, "Justice is blind". The case of the Jena Six has be come so heated and sensationalized, that this road to justice will be long to say the least.

The incidents that lead up to this event are tragic and did nothing but drive a wedge between the black and white communities in Jena, but for the sake of a fair trial, for the defendants and the victim alike, the court must ask itself this question, as tragic as they may be, Do these events have direct bearing on the case at hand? The noose incident, was disgusting, repugnant, the students were completely justified when they staged a sit-in under the tree, a brazen show of solidarity and unity in the face of a snarling racist beast. I applaud the students for their action, I am proud to say if I could, I would stand with them in solidarity. However does this incident, from 3 months before the incident, have bearing on the crime at hand? As much as it pains me to say it, this incident, as tragic as it may be, has no bearing on the case at hand, and has been played out by proponents of the Jena Six's freedom, to make it seem as if this incident had direct bearing on the case. The only incident that has direct bearing, on the Jena Six, would be the Incident at the party, which resulted in the arrest of Mr. Bailey's attacker. Was justice not served when the man accused of instigating the incident at the party was charged with assault? Then what all must ask themselves when they weigh the circumstances of the case, Could Mr. Bailey and the 5 other students taken another course of action, than violently attack their classmate, on school grounds? Was violence their only means? Mr. Barker uttered some nasty things, exactly what was said has been contested, but he did not pose any direct threat to Mr. Bailey at the time of the attack. The words may have been offensive and crude, but words are hardly justification for assault, unless such words threaten imminent danger to themselves or others, which they did not.

It was Plato that once said, "Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off." We would all do well to remember this statement by that most venerated of the ancient Greeks when considering the issue of the six young men currently awaiting trial in Jena, Louisiana. I reiterate the emphasis on viewing the crimes as a case of Guilty versus Innocent, upholding the Laws of the State of Louisiana, not the public opinion. It should be nothing but the consideration of all of the facts involved in this case. Assault and Battery are both clearly