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