Jena 6 Prosecutor Speaks

Reed Walters, the district attorney at the center of the Jena 6 storm, wrote an editorial in today's New York Times. Titled "Justice in Jena," Walters seeks to explain his reasoning for prosecuting Mychal Bell and the five other teens.

What follows are excerpts.

Walters on why he didn't levy hate crimes charges against the white students:

"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."

His regrets about the case:

"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."

His response to the public outcry:

"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."

Read the full op-ed and tell us what you think.

Geoffrey Bennett

4:59 PM ET | 09-26-2007 | permalink

comments | | e-mail