What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What's going on with the Jena Six?

  • Thread starter Clint
  • Start date
  • Tags
    free

Clint

Stay chooned in for more!
I don't understand what's going on with Jena six. Why are people protesting when 6 people tried to kill another person? I realize that this is a racial issue but if they DID do it, why are people wanting them to be released (I think all but one has been released)? Or is it not confirmed that they did anything at all? What's going on?

All I know is 6 people beat up one, they were arrested and everyone wants them to be free. Why is this? What's the controversy? Clearly I don't know the whole story. Was the dude they beat up just some random person who happened to be under the "white tree" (how stupid!) or was it a racist?
 
I think the issue is that this incident is one in a long line of white vs. black conflicts and retaliations. From what I've heard, when the white students are the guilty party, they recieve only mild academic discipline (I believe police charges were dropped or steeply lessened,) while the black students consistently recieve the strongest punishments available. I don't know if much of anyone is disputing that the fight itself was wrong - it's the double-standard that folks are all twisted up over.
~Joe
 
thank god i listen in school!
What's the controversy?
The students were being tried with an all white jury and a white lawyer(who apparently sucked at his job). at first they were charged as adults(though one was 16) for 80 YEARS then it got dropped to 20 years.... the person attacked suffered from a black eye and few bruises. to me thats not worth even 20 years.
Was the dude they beat up just some random person who happened to be under the "white tree" (how stupid!) or was it a racist?
he was friends with the people who hung up the nooses in the tree.


Alex
 
The students were being tried with an all white jury and a white lawyer(who apparently sucked at his job).
So what. From looking at things that appear in the news every now and then, black people like to complain about things like this a lot. What they fail to do in these types of situations is look at the law of probability. If I committed a crime in an area that was 90% black, and the jury was entirely black, that's not racism, that's probability. If an area with a 90-100% black population has a prison with a 90-100% black population, that's not the police being racist...that's probability. Yeah I think 80 years is a little harsh, but thats why this country allows you a seemingly endless appeals process. If you think the circuit court is twisted/doing a bad job/etc, you take it to state supreme or federal court. As seedjar said, here come the double standards. If a black kid beat me up, it'd be assault. If I beat up a black guy, no matter the circumstances, it'd be a "hate crime" that I'd get a much more severe punishment for, which I think is absolutely ludicrous (the whole concept of "hate crimes" that is).

If these kids did beat someone up, especially if it was a 6 on 1 fight, they need to suffer the consequences.
 
Although probability is a big factor, I'm sure during jury selection the attorney for the white students immediately removed the few black members that were called for jury duty.

xvart.
 
I did't think the attorney on either side ever has the ability to do that?
 
Both attorneys (defense and prosecutor) can dismiss a certain number of possible jurors. This is a safeguard against rogue jurors who intend to skew justice. As for the jury being all white, the defense lawyer most likely chose several of the white jurors himself. This is not a bad thing, as not everyone is racist. Undoubtedly several of those white jurors would be unbiased. One of the real problems with the justice system is money though. Race actually plays a much smaller role in court than money. When you pay upwards of 10K$ for a lawyer to represent you, he usually knows what he's doing. Not only does he have more experience and knowledge, but these high-class lawyers work closely with prosecutors and judges, and often receive preferential treatment for their clients. I have seen it happen many times, and have some personal experience in that regard myself. I am not familiar with this case or incident (I haven't been watching the news lately :glare: ) but I would imagine if their attorney really was incompetent, than they were screwed from the get-go. Either way, ganging up on someone for a beatdown is never acceptable unless that person did something similar or worse.
On a related note, here in San Diego, a professional surfer was recently beaten to death over a spilled drink at the bar. I personally hope they give everyone involved in the murder lethal injection. They did not intend to kill him, much as I'm sure these "Jena six" didn't intend to (and I know they didn't actually kill him), but their actions led to his (surfer's) death. They beat him senseless and he died from his injuries. It's this kind of thoughtless action that gets people like these guys into so much trouble/or shot. If the San Diego incident didn't occur in such a lame state like California, someone with a CCW would have put a hydra-shok round into the attackers' faces. I gurantee you the other guys would have stopped immediately. Sorry for the ranting, I just get so riled up when I hear about injustice and the defenseless.
 
No phission. It's only a hate crime when it's racially motived. If you beat up someone , it's assault, but if you beat them up BECAUSE they are another race then it's a hate crime.

Isn't the jury supposed to be randomly selected? In my town the entire jury would probably be white republican christians since that's the majority (vast majority :( ) And can't someone request a different lawyer if the one you are assigned sucks? Do you mean to tell me that out of SIX people, they couldn't afford a real lawyer?

If it's true that the AA kids are treated so differently in school, why isn't the NAACP and ACLU going after the school board? Or are they?
 
No phission. It's only a hate crime when it's racially motived. If you beat up someone , it's assault, but if you beat them up BECAUSE they are another race then it's a hate crime.

Isn't the jury supposed to be randomly selected? In my town the entire jury would probably be white republican christians since that's the majority (vast majority :( ) And can't someone request a different lawyer if the one you are assigned sucks?

If it's true that the AA kids are treated so differently in school, why isn't the NAACP and ACLU going after the school board? Or are they?


I think what Phission means is that the public (or a judge) will interpret it like that. If I (who happens to be white) beat up a black person, many people would call it a hate crime. That doesn't mean that it was a hate crime, but that's how many (not all but many) people would imterpret it.
 
  • #10
I don't understand how anyone can say that is a hate crime unless you had a history (hypothetically speaking of course) of racist ideation or another instances like that.

It's like that episode of Southpark where cartman throws a rock at Token (the only black kid) and gets charged with a hate crime, even though he only threw the rock because Token kept calling him fat.
 
  • #11
Isn't the jury supposed to be randomly selected? In my town the entire jury would probably be white republican christians since that's the majority (vast majority :( ) And can't someone request a different lawyer if the one you are assigned sucks? Do you mean to tell me that out of SIX people, they couldn't afford a real lawyer?

The Juror POOL is randomly selected, but from those jurors the lawyers choose the actual jury. This is why if you show up to jury duty, you just sit a in a giant room with a few hundred others (at least in San Diego), and each different case being heard (each courtroom) will take about 50 Jurors. For each case being heard, the attorneys will ask the jurors questions that usually have pertinence to the case being tried. For example they might ask whether they had heard about the crime before this, or whether they have any feelings about race crimes. If they think they are not suitable as a jury member, then they dismiss them. You CAN request a different attorney if you feel yours is inadequate, but it is just that, a request. This is also to say that they were being represented by a public pretender (err public defender) in the first place. They may have pooled together money for an incompetent lawyer. If it was the public defender, the state may or may not have granted them a different lawyer upon request but usually they do not. This is actually a common complaint heard in the San Diego Courts.
 
  • #12
Remove the zero from the 20 and that'll be an acceptable punishment.
 
  • #13
I think "hate crime" is being thrown around because of the previous incident of the noose and the relevance that incident has on the previous mistreatment of black people when the world wasn't so educated and people were not treated equally.

xvart.
 
  • #14
Nepenthusiast you hit the nail on the head.
The white kids hung nooses in a tree. That is NOT a crime by any means. Sure, it was racially motivated and was meant to anger the black kids, but it was not a crime. Then the black kids, racially motivated and acting out of anger/hate, beat up a white kid. They're not getting charged with a "hate crime". Either everyone should get it, or no one should (thats what I prefer). There have been many many instances where whites were charged with hate crimes agasint blacks, but comparatively little (if any...I've never heard of it happening) blacks have been charged with hate crimes against whites, even though black on white crime occurs at a MUCH higher rate (2-5x...can't remember) than white on black crime. Again, not racism, but statistics.
 
  • #15
I agree with these statements. There is a double standard admitedly, but the wrong one is being sited many times. I do not know the full extent of the case but I heard the kid was given a concusion and his head repeatedly rammed into a brick wall. So take from it what you will. They should be charged with a "hate crime" since that i what notivated the crime to begin with. I thoguht it was intersting on O'reilly the other night there was a black guy on there calling the people who arranged the march hipocrits because he saw theri double standards as well. They were all over the white kids for something, but as soon as their black counterparts did the same thing or similar action as the white folks they were chastizing they refused to say anything.

About like Hillary Clinton not chastizing the moveon.org comercial but says she supports the General. Hipocrits!
 
  • #16
But I'm not sure that it necessarily qualifies as a hate crime. As Josh said, I'm not as educated about the case as I could be, but from my understanding they didn't beat him up because he was white. From my understanding they beat him up because he was associated with some of their student peers that had used poor judgment and participated in very inappropriate behavior. Not that that makes it justified; but it doesn't make it a hate crime either.

xvart.
 
  • #18
Phissioncorps its easy to know what your saying becuase I agree with these statements very much!

Its being so UN-racist that it is racist!
racism sucks :censor:.
 
Back
Top