Legal Question in Civil Rights Law in California

Re: Jena 6

A hate crime seems to be whatever modern Utopian liberals define it as, without regard to reason or constitutionality. In reality and practice, it is a criminalization of thought and speech, in order to promote a political agenda and a societal standards change, with the actual effect of creating special classes of people whose feelings are apparently worth more than others. It is quite arguably blatant discrimination and preferential treatment on behalf of the 'protected' class.

Whether an assault and battery, or an intentional premeditated murder, is committed, why should it matter whether it was because the victim was a different race or 'gender preference' than the perpetrator? The harm is the same, the conduct is the same, why should the punishment be different. Our system is supposed to punish improper conduct, not thought.

Re: Jena 6

"Hate Crimes" are not crimes in-and-of themselves. They are aggravating circumstances that are used to enhance sentences on crimes.

Below is a statement from the Jena District Attorney that was emailed to me. I think it will shed a great deal of light on the situation for you.

As the Jena DA's article will take up more space than is allowable on the system, I will try to break it up into two parts, if the system allows me to.

********************

Justice in Jena

By REED WALTERS

Published: September 26, 2007

Jena, La.

THE case of the so-called Jena Six has fired the imaginations of thousands, notably young African-Americans who, according to many of their comments, believe they will be in the vanguard of a new civil rights movement. Whether America needs a new civil rights movement I leave to social activists, politicians and the people who must give life to such a cause. I am a small-town lawyer and prosecutor. For 16 years, it has been my job as the district attorney to review each criminal case brought to me by the police department or the sheriff, match the facts to any applicable laws and seek justice for those who have been harmed. The work is often rewarding, but not always. I do not question the sincerity or motivation of the 10,000 or more protesters who descended on Jena last week, after riding hundreds of miles on buses. But long before reaching our town of 3,000 people, they had decided that a miscarriage of justice was taking place here. Their anger at me was summed up by a woman who said, “If you can figure out how to make a schoolyard fight into an attempted murder charge, I’m sure

you can figure out how to make stringing nooses into a hate crime.” That could be a compelling statement to someone trying to motivate listeners on a radio show, but as I am a lawyer obligated to enforce the laws of my state, it does not work for me. I cannot overemphasize how abhorrent and stupid I find the placing of the nooses on the schoolyard tree in late August 2006. If those who committed that act considered it a prank, their sense of humor is seriously distorted. It was mean-spirited and deserves the condemnation of all decent people. But it broke no law. I searched the Louisiana criminal code for a crime that I could prosecute. There is none. Similarly, the United States attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, who is African-American, found no federal law against what was done. A district attorney cannot take people to trial for acts not covered in the statutes. Imagine the trampling of individual rights that would occur if prosecutors were allowed to pursue every person whose behavior they disapproved of. The “hate crime” the protesters wish me to prosecute does not exist as a stand-alone offense in Louisiana law.

Re: Jena 6

(CONTINUED)

It’s not that our Legislature has turned a blind eye to crimes motivated by race or other personal characteristics, but it has addressed the problem in a way that does not cover what happened in Jena. The hate crime statute is used to enhance the sentences of defendants found guilty of specific crimes, like murder or rape, who chose their victims based on race, religion, sexual orientation or other factors. Last week, a reporter asked me whether, if I had it to do over, I would do anything differently. I didn’t think of it at the time, but the answer is yes. I would have done a better job of explaining that the offenses of Dec. 4, 2006, did not stem from a “schoolyard fight” as it has been commonly described in the news media and by critics. Conjure the image of schoolboys fighting: they exchange words, clench fists, throw punches, wrestle in the dirt until classmates or teachers pull them apart. Of course that would not be aggravated second-degree

battery, which is what the attackers are now charged with. (Five of the defendants were originally charged with attempted second-degree murder.) But that’s not what happened at Jena High School. The victim in this crime, who has been all but forgotten amid the focus on the defendants, was a young man named Justin Barker, who was not involved in the nooses incident three months earlier. According to all the credible evidence I am aware of, after lunch, he walked to his next class. As he passed through the gymnasium door to the outside, he was blindsided and knocked unconscious by a vicious blow to the head thrown by Mychal Bell. While lying on the ground unaware of what was happening to him, he was brutally kicked by at least six people. Imagine you were walking down a city street, and someone leapt from behind a tree and hit you so hard that you fell to the sidewalk unconscious. Would you later describe that as a fight? Only the intervention of an uninvolved student protected Mr. Barker from severe injury or death. There was serious bodily harm inflicted with a dangerous weapon — the definition of aggravated second-degree battery. Mr. Bell’s conviction on that charge as an adult has been overturned,

but I considered adult status appropriate because of his role as the instigator of the attack, the seriousness of the charge and his prior criminal record. I can understand the emotions generated by the juxtaposition of the noose incident with the attack on Mr. Barker and the outcomes for the

perpetrators of each. In the final analysis, though, I am bound to enforce the laws of Louisiana as they exist today, not as they might in someone’s vision of a perfect world. That is what I have done. And that is what I must continue to do.