Jena Prosecutor Walters in the NYT

Reed Walters, the prosecutor of the Jena Six, had an op-ed today in the NYT. Short version: Don't blame me.

Actually, the guy sounds mostly reasonable on the surface, at least if, like most people, you still don't know the facts of the case. He made his job easy by using a layperson speaking out on a legal issue as the representative of all the arguments against him. At least, the easy ones he wanted to respond to. Someone says, why prosecute these kids for assault, and not prosecute the ones who hung the nooses which set off all this racial fighting in the first place? Reed answers, I tried to be fair, but terrorizing and provoking blacks by hanging nooses where they're not wanted is perfectly legal. I had to prosecute the assault because it's my job.

The National Lawyers Guild statement lays out more of the case. Reed leaves out that he has already had to scale back his prosecution because the law would not sustain his original overreaching, charging attempted murder for a series of blows that resulted in no serious injury persisting for more than a few hours. Compounded by the decision he scarcely justifies of charging one of the youths as an adult. He also does not mention his history of similar bias, or his apparent conflict of interest in the matter.

I also disagree with Walters' description of his job (to lay the facts against the statutes and seek justice for victims, he says). The prosecutor's role is to vindicate societal justice by employing the criminal law, not just for victims but for everyone in the jurisdiction.

I find some aspects of his account vague: what was the criminal record of Mr. Bell that he refers to?

I get sick of officials admitting that they made a mistake, but only a PR mistake. The truth is, he did make a PR mistake, and most of the time, a PR mistake is a symptom of a bigger problem.

And he hides behind an African American federal prosecutor to imply that what he did was no different, which is horrendously misleading because most crimes, unless they happen on Indian reservations, cross state lines, or involve the government, are state crimes.

All of this appears dishonest to me. That's five things that look fishy without even starting on his facts. I don;t know the facts, but a good rule of thumb is, when you can catch 'em on what you know, expect them to be twice as dirty with what you don't.

But it's not all his fault. The judge, and lax DOJ Civil Rights apparatus that permitted all this comes in for some blame, as does the community, and the Louisiana Legislature -- can the noose display really not be a crime? Surpringly, that seems very plausible to me, because from what I can see, the criminal code there is a mess. To larger extent than in any of the midwestern states whose criminal laws I've studied, it's a big stack of specific offenses that are semi-random in what they cover.