FARAI CHIDEYA, host:
From NPR News, this is NEWS & NOTES. I'm Farai Chideya.
Looks like the Jena Six co-defendant Mychal Bell should finally get his day in court - juvenile court.
Late Wednesday, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco took the mic. She announced that the local district attorney will not fight an appeals court decision to try Bell as a juvenile. Bell was 16 years old at the time he allegedly assaulted a white student. He's now 17. Bell's supporters argued that trying Bell as an adult was unfair and illegal.
Here's Blanco yesterday.
Governor KATHLEEN BLANCO (Democrat, Louisiana): There is no place for racism in Louisiana. We do not tolerate racism. We will not tolerate discrimination nor will we tolerate intimidation in any form, whatsoever.
CHIDEYA: Blanco spoke just after she met with the Reverend Al Sharpton and Martin Luther King III in Baton Rouge.
Bell remains in jail, but Sharpton and others hope Bell's bond will be set low enough for a quick release.
What are the wider legal implications of the case? We've got Kirsten Levingston. She directs public programs at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
Kirsten, welcome.
Ms. KIRSTEN LEVINGSTON (Director, Brennan Center for Justice Program, New York University): Thank you, Farai. It's good to be with you.
CHIDEYA: So let's start with Mychal Bell. What happens to him next and how is it that he's still in jail?
Ms. LEVINGSTON: We will hear from the prosecutor shortly about his plans for what happens next to Mychal Bell. The fact that he is not - that the prosecutor is not pursuing the appeal is a great move in the right direction. However, the prosecutor still maintains a lot of discretion and can proceed in a juvenile court. If he does decide to proceed in juvenile court, he will also have some discretion in keeping Bell locked up during the juvenile proceedings. So while this is a positive development, for sure, Mychal Bell is not yet out of the rough waters.
CHIDEYA: Does it make a difference that Mychal Bell has prior convictions on his record?
Ms. LEVINGSTON: Often times, as the prosecutors exercise their discretion, they look at a suspect, at a defendant. And I think that things like prior convictions, and unfortunately, we see here in this Jena Six case - even the race of the individual involved in the system as well as the race of the victim are factors that are considered when the prosecutor decides what he's going to do. So I think the prior convictions certainly played into things as well as other factors here.
CHIDEYA: Now, Reed Walters, the La Salle Parish district attorney, wrote an op-ed that appeared in the New York Times yesterday before this announcement and he defended his choice not to file hate crime charges against the white students who hung the nooses. He quotes a young woman who said, quote, "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."
Now, what exactly does that quote say about the kind of latitude that criminal prosecutors have?
Ms. LEVINGSTON: Well, prosecutors certainly have a great deal of discretion and latitude. I think it's interesting, though, how this whole conversation is being framed because it's being framed as an issue of criminal justice and punishment.
When I look at all of the events that have gone on in Jena over the last year or so, you know, I see some problems. There were lots of fights. There's lots of anger. There are incredibly threatening and despicable acts like the hanging of the noose on the tree.
But the question that I think the broader society has to ask is what is the solution. And I would argue that criminalizing everything and simply looking at how harshly we can punish those who are involved in the activities is not the only solution. If we really want to get away from a society in which nooses can be hung, I don't think we can rely on the criminal justice system to prevent that. I mean, it's really important to look at the broader social issues and dynamics and really figure out the proper way to solve those underlying problems and tensions that led to this whole scenario.
CHIDEYA: But in the criminal justice system, whether it's this case or any cases that might have similar implications, there is this prosecutorial discretion. What exactly does it mean and how does it affect the kinds of charges that young men and women are facing and the kind of atmosphere that they move into in a criminal justice system?
Ms. LEVINGSTON: Well, a prosecutor essentially has omnipotent power. They are presented with a situation, a set of facts, and they look at those facts and determine whether or not a crime has happened. And if so, what type of crime happened.
And you mentioned Mr. Walters' op-ed piece earlier this week. I mean, I think it's fascinating that in that op-ed piece, he really defended the charges that he brought against Mychal Bell and the other kids in Jena. But we see from today's developments that, obviously, he's changed his mind. He's decided that he doesn't want to pursue the prosecution of Bell as an adult, which was a discretionary decision that he made. I mean, even earlier in the case, the charges morphed from, you know, attempted murder to a battery charge or -battery charge. And, again, you saw the prosecutor kind of changing his mind about exactly what happened and what the facts lent themselves to in terms of a criminal charge.
So the prosecutor has great, great decision at that charging moment. They have great discretion at whether or not they offer a plea. They have great discretion in terms of the kind of sentence recommendation that they make to a judge. And prosecutors in our system of justice, I believe, really are there to uphold justice, to do justice, not just to win a case and not just to harshly punish.
CHIDEYA: So final question, is this going to help create an environment in which we, as a society, look at these questions of prosecutorial discretion, race and the criminal justice system, all that?
Ms. LEVINGSTON: I think we have a real opportunity here, and the question is what we make of this opportunity. The case in Jena comes on the heels of a similar case in North Carolina in which a prosecutor's discretion, I think, all of us agree was abused. So I think on the heels of these two very transparent, very public shows of misused prosecutorial discretion, we have a moment to come forward with some solutions.
The transparency is key. We have to know what prosecutors are deciding and the factors that go into their decision-making. And if we could move forward in requiring prosecutors to explain themselves a bit more, that would be a very positive step as well.
CHIDEYA: All right. Well, Kirsten, thanks so much.
Ms. LEVINGSTON: Thank you, Farai.
CHIDEYA: Kirsten Levingston runs public programs for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. And she joined us by phone. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.