A Conversation
Tim: Good morning R! It's nice to see you, how are you old friend?
R: Just fine, thank you. And yourself? ".
Tim: Oh, to be honest, not so well I've been troubled recently?
R: Sorry to hear it my friend! Is there some way I may help you?
Tim: Well, probably not. It's a very big problem.
R: What is the trouble? I wish I could help you somewhat! Won't you
even tell me what's bothering you?
Tim: It's our system of judicial process, R, and the evil nature of
its effects in many cases, and the destructive influence it is having
on the social well-being of many millions of people in the American under
class; I mean those people who inhabit the ground floor of the nation,
who live chiefly below the so-called poverty line; the poor people in other
words, R.
R: Well! What got you to thinking of this, Tim? If you don't mind
me asking?
Tim: Not a bit, I was just talking the other day with my good friend
A, whose father was killed in the big fire of '98 on the east end of town.
R: Yes, I know A. A fine young man!
Tim: Yes, A was telling me how his brother had been arrested and charged
with drug possession.
R: That's terrible! I hadn't heard.
Tim: Yes, A was saying that his brother had been appointed a free
court lawyer who was not doing much to prepare a defense. Anyhow, we fell
to discussing the potential for unfairness between a wholly indigent accused
who must chiefly rely upon one single court appointed pauper counsel, as
opposed with all the power, authority, and resources which the state may
bring to bear in seeking conviction and imprisonment of the accused so situated.
It became very troubling to me, as we inadvertently began to reach common
sense conclusions indicating that indigent persons tried for crime have little
chance of receiving a fair trial, not; withstanding the constitutional provisions.
I tell you, my friend, I've been extremely upset ever since then, I can hardly
sleep since gaining the knowledge of this, because of the implications against
fairness, and the potential for injustice present in the criminal Process,
that stand revealed by my knowing. Perhaps it's true, that old saying, that
knowledge increases sorrow.
R: Yes, I've heard that old saying from my grandfather! Indeed it
must be true. But please tell me, Tim, if you will more about this injustice
you speak of I'm not certain I follow all you said. Please, forgive me.
Tim: Nothing to forgive. It may be helpful to discuss this out
loud with one another. Indeed, if you agree, let us analyze these
aspects of so-called criminal justice, and endeavor to reach a plateau
of understanding about the causes and effects involved.
R: Yes! Please do continue, Tim, I'm very intrigued! And I confess,
I do enjoy listening to you explain things in your fashion!
Tim: Why thank you R, it's very kind of you to say so. Well
then, if you are agreed, let me just begin and ask you a few questions,
and you will please answer to the best of your knowledge and belief, all
right?
R: Ask away!
Tim: Very well. Tell me R, if you can, who makes the laws?
R: Oh, the legislature, I suppose, Tim, yes, the House of Representatives.
Tim: But tell me, my good friend, what makes up the Legislature?
R: Why, the elected officials, the politicians.
Tim: Thank you.. And these politicians, I take it, they write the
laws which govern the state, those laws which criminals allegedly
transgress and are then arrested and imprison for?
R: Yes.
Tim: And most politicians, these representatives we speak of, are
they lawyers do you think, these men who write the laws?
R: Why, it stands to reason that to write laws one would have
to be qualified as a lawyer.
Tim: So they write these laws which eventually target some specified
form of prohibited or inappropriate conduct?
R: Yes.
Tim: All right then, please tell me, the judge who sits on the bench
and directs the proceedings in a criminal trial, is he not a lawyer?
R: Certainly. Judges are lawyers before they become judges.
Tim: Answer this: The free defense counsel who is court appointed
to defend an indigent accused, and also the prosecutor who charges the
crime against such a poor person, they too are also, first and foremost
lawyers. Isn't that true?
R: Yes, of course.
Tim: Now then lets make certain we're in full agreement before we
proceed further. Please attend closely, and don't hesitate to interrupt
me if I should say anything you disagree with, all right? Now then, the
men who write the laws in the legislature are lawyers. The court appointed
counsel provided for pauper accused persons is a lawyer. The prosecutor
bringing the charge is a lawyer; and the judge who presides over all of
the proceedings, all of these are, chiefly lawyers. What do you say?
R: Yes of course their all lawyers.
Tim: So if one wanted to, one could take the judge and make him prosecutor,
take the prosecutor and make him the judge, take the politician who writes
the laws and switch him to defending the indigent poor accused, take the
free defense counsel and let him write some laws, and for all intents and
purposes, the only difference would be in name. Does that follow?
r: There would be no obvious difference other than name, because
they are all interchangeable.
Tim: I quite agree. Now then, these politicians, the men who write
and pass the laws in the legislature, with the stroke of a pen as it were
can make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. Isn't that so?
R: I'm not sure what you mean.
Tim: Well, for example, I like to target practice in my back yard
with my .22 rifle, and I have done so for many years. In that time I've
never harmed a soul by practicing with my rifle in such a manner, and
in fact have always enjoyed my right to do this, being at my liberty. But
the politician in the state capital, far removed from here, can write
a law that says a firearm must not be discharged within miles of the city
limits. And in that fashion, that law would make me a criminal if I nevertheless
continue to target practice in the way I have always done. Do you see what
I mean?
R: Yes, now I do.
Tim: For the sake of the argument, attend closely to the following:
Let us suppose that such a law was in fact written by a politician down
in the legislature, was enacted by vote from the other politicians, which
made it a crime for me to fire my .22 rifle in my own back yard. If I then
ignored that written statute and went ahead and kept up with practicing
in my back yard with my rifle, discharging it in target practice, as I
have enjoyed doing for all these years, would that conduct make me a criminal?
Please answer.
R: You're no criminal, You are a good and respected citizen.
Tim: I thank you for saying so, but answer and tell me, would I be
breaking the law or not, by ignoring the statute and practicing with firing
my rifle?
R: Well, I hate to say so, but yes, you would be breaking the law
in that respect; but you're no criminal, certainly not!
Tim: Not to you, my friend, but in the eyes of the law as they say,
I would become a criminal. Do you see that distinction clearly?
R: Yes, but I think that such a law, under those circumstances, would
be an unjust one.
Tim: Indeed? Well the answer and tell me, my friend, concerning such
unjust laws as these, as you say, should we be content to obey them at
the cost of our liberty, or should we transgress them to preserve it.
R: Why, shouldn't we obey? What do you think?
Tim: I say that as long as no one is being directly, or indirectly,
harmed by my actions, then I should be left to pursue happiness at my
own discretion. As long as one's actions do not harm another physically,
or threaten such harm, and likewise if ones actions do not damage another's
property or otherwise deprive another of their property, or again threaten
to do so, I believe one is acting in accordance with the interests of society.
In order for an actual crime to be committed, or for a mode of conduct
to become unlawful, there must be a loss or damage to another's property,
or there must be a physical injury or harm done
to another. To my understanding, it cannot ever be otherwise. What
do you say to this?
R: I think I agree with you, Tim.
Tim: Tell me, what of my a carrying a handgun? For example,
say I were walking down the street and had a handgun concealed on my person;
and for whatever reason a police officer discovered the handgun and arrested
me for violation of a concealed carry statute, written by the politician-lawyers
and I were put into prison or made to pay a fine, and my weapon confiscated.
What of this?
R: Well, that is very similar to the former argument about practicing
with your rifle. To punish you for just carrying a handgun seems unjust
to me, seeing as how we retain the right to keep and bear arms, and the
right. personal defense.
Tim: Would my carrying the concealed handgun make me a criminal?
R: No, you are no criminal, certainly not for carrying a personal
firearm for protection, as is your constitutional right. You are a good
person, and well respected by many.
Tim: Ah, but my friend, I violated the law which was written and passed
by the politicians, and again, in the eyes of that law, I have become
criminal?
R: Well confound- that -law, I know you are no bad person, such a
law would be an unjust one!
Tim: As a matter of course, it would be quite a different thing altogether
were I to pull the gun out on someone in threat, or use it to commit a
hold-up or if indeed, I actually shot someone with the gun, or damaged property
by firing it; then and only then has my conduct become unlawful, and an
offense been committed. In order for an actual crime to be perpetrated, there
must be a physical injury to a person or a loss or damage to property. Do
you not agree with this?
R: What you say is very reasonable.
Tim: What of smoking or possessing marijuana, in the privacy of ones
home, for recreational use? If I were to smoke a joint of marijuana while
on my own property, who would I be harming? It is not anyone's business
but mine, as long as I am harming no one I could possessing a natural plant
like marijuana, setting it afire and inhaling it, or eating it, whatever,
make me a criminal?
R: No, my friend, of course not because the lawyer-politicians have
written a foolish law doesn't make you criminal this argument is again
similar to the former ones.
Tim: There are many good people in prison as we speak, for just such
pretended crimes. By writing the laws to begin with, in the legislatures,
the politicians are able to target specific groups of people, who are more
likely because of their environments to become charged with these types
of pretended offenses. And, since these targeted groups of people are
chiefly the abject poor and the working class poor, for the most part,
who cannot pay a private defense attorney to diligently defend them, and
cannot pay large fines, as a result end up in a prison cell! Can we describe
this as being a system of justice? On the contrary, this comes closer to
being an evil enterprise, when the poor are targeted for imprisonment, in
these cases where there's no injury or physical harm done, nor damage or
loss of property has occurred. Since such as this clearly does not define
a system based upon what can properly be called justice, what is it based
upon? Who benefits from sending the poor to prison for these victimless
crimes? CUI BONO??
R: Well, certainly, a lot of people do benefit, at the expense of
the poor so situated being imprisoned. Most notably, the police officers,
the lawyers, judges, prison guards and staff, and really, when you think
about it, a huge amount of revenue is generated by such poor persons being
charged, tried, and imprisoned. And now that I really think and consider
the implications of this, in cases such as you described where one is
charged and confined to prison even where no actual unlawful conduct or
came was committed, in a victimless offense in other words, this might
rightly be termed an evil .enterprise
Tim: Please describe in what manner evil?
R: Well consider, you have one class of people being targeted by written
laws for victimless offenses, as we've described, which would be the uneducated
poor people, disadvantaged by their environment, becoming imprisoned for
these victimless offenses, while the other class of people, the middle class
or not poor, being lawyers, police, prison guards, etc., who are benefiting
from the misfortune and imprisonment of the under class, gaining their
livelihood, their paychecks, off of the poor who stir in the prison cells.
That seems to me to define an evil process, when these poor are imprisoned
under these statutory schemes and written laws, where no one has been hurt
physically, and no property is lost, or damaged, where in reality no crime
has been committed against another.
Tim: I agree with you. Now answer, please, might we rightly categorize
those benefiting from the misfortune of these people thus imprisoned,
might we say they occupy a class position that represents what I'll define
as the status quo? What do you say?
R: I think that term is apt.
Tim: Thank you. Now, let me ask you, does there exist a vested interest
or benefit to one class over the other, in maintaining such a status quo?
R: Well, as long as the poor continue to be sent to prison for these
victimless ,crimes then the police, the lawyers, judges, corrections officers,
as well as a virtual army of support personnel for these such as law clerks,
court clerks, stenographers, secretaries, etc.; all of these persons have
such a vested interest in maintaining their status quo, because they get
their living from the poor being imprisoned.
Tim: All right then, please answer the following few further questions.
R: That would suit me to a tee.
Tim: Good! Now tell me, if you can, R, who else besides the aforementioned
police, lawyers, judges, corrections officers, etc., who else besides
these realize any benefit from the poor being imprisoned?
R: Well, Tim, the entire economy of the state would benefit, because
the prison employees, the police employees, the lawyers and judges and
support personnel for all of these, all of these persons are spending their
paychecks to purchase goods and
services, which in turn pays the wages of countless other working
persons in retail businesses, ,etc. therefore economy gets a boost from
the imprisonment of the poor for these victimless crimes we have spoken
of.
Tim: I agree. But tell me, where does the money come Faa; which pays
the prison industry employees, and the police and law enforcement officers,
the prosecutors and judges, etc., and for all the support personnel for
these, where does all that money come form?
R: It comes from the state treasury dept., which collects the taxes
paid in by citizens.
Tim: So the state treasury pays all these people?
R: The Governor approves a yearly budget based upon the projected
costs and expenditures for each agency for the coming fiscal year, and
then the state treasury dept. deposits money in assorted bank accounts
for each state agency to draw upon.
Tim: Then the amount of money that gets budgeted for, say, the dept.
of corrections, earmarked to be spent on the upkeep of the prisons, to pay
the guards and the prison support services industries, and to feed and
clothe the prisoners, to pay doctors and for medicines and medical equipment,
for electricity, etc. the amount of money allotted to pay for these things
in any year, would depend almost entirely upon the number of prisoners
locked up, wouldn't it?
R: Why yes, I suppose it would.
Tim: Therefore as the numbers of these prisoners increase, the amount
of money budgeted increases in direct proportion there-to, and hence,
if the amount necessary for law enforcement, judiciary, and dept. of corrections
to adequately operate got so high as to exceed the amount available to
be distributed without running a deficit, then the politicians would., have
an excuse to vote to raise taxes on goods and services bought or sold in
the state. Does that follow?
R: It certainly seems to. Your reasoning must be very close to what
actually happens in that regard. I confess I had never heard or thought
these matters through to such an extent; what you say there seems entirely
probable.
Tim: In fact, one might soundly conclude that the same lawyer-politicians
who initially write these laws, which target the socially and economically
disadvantaged for these victimless crimes, these laws that have their end
with putting the poor in prison cells, these politicians later pass laws
raising taxes, in order to collect more money for the state treasury. What
do you say to this? What is the matter? Speak up now and answer me, don't
sit there with your mouth hanging open! Are you all right, my friend?
R: It's as if scales are falling from my eyes, Tim!
Tim: Please answer my question. Might one reasonably conclude that
these politicians are creating victimless statutory offenses which
chiefly target the poor and the disadvantaged in society, which has resulted
in vast increases of poor people becoming imprisoned, and these same politicians
subsequently raise taxes to collect more money for the state, their excuse
being because there's so many poor people in prison? What do you say?
R I admit that your reasoning leads to that conclusion.
Tim: Then, do you begin to see what I started by telling you, my friend?
There is an evil nature to our current criminal justice system, an aspect
that is subtle destructive towards the American poor. Do you begin
to see as I said'" before, the implications against fairness, and the clear
injustice that is revealed by our knowing these truths??
R: I am starting to.
Tim: Well then, since knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and
the way to freedom rests in arming oneself with the power and knowledge
gives, let us proceed yet a bit further with our discussion. Shall we?
R: By all means.
Tim: All right then. Please answer this: What in this life, of all
things, is the most precious to a man?
R: A tough question! Lets see now. I guess I would say it depends
on the character of each man. For some, the most precious thing might
be diamonds, or gold, to others money, to others still, music, or works
of art, or ones sons, or beloved daughters, or yet, a lover, or mate.
It depends on the individual.
Tim: My dear friend, well spoken! But I must beg your pardon, and
rephrase my question. Please forgive me! Now then, please answer to the
best of your ability. Tell me in the final analyses of human life, on this
beautiful planet we inhabit, what is more valuable to mankind than anything
else?
R: Well probably, I don't know. Air? Water? Food?
Tim: All good answers, but what I was thinking of was time. We each
of us, being human, are granted only so many days to live amid the earths
splendor: under the big, beautiful sun. We all must pass away, Our days
are each numbered. And so I submit to you, that because we have only a
little time to live Our short lives, that the most precious thing to each
of us is not gold or diamonds, or money or possessions, or yet ail: or water:
or food, but time, my friend, time is very short for all of us humankind,
and therefore, the most dear. Do you take my meaning?
R: Yes, and I agree. For clearly, on ones deathbed, facing the great
dark unknown, what would a man not give for another year of life on earth,
to spend with loved ones, to gaze in wonder at the magnificence of the heavens?
I do agree with you, Tim. Time is the most precious of things.
Tim: Yes, and so it stands to reason, and logically follows from this,
does it not, that wasting of time, of all things, must be a great evil?
R: It certainly does.
Tim: All the more then is the evil nature revealed, of taking the
Poor and putting them into prison, stealing their time on earth, taking
the most precious thing of all from these prisoners, and for what? For
engaging in a form of behavior that is deemed inappropriate by a politician,
for being guilty of a pretended offense where there's actually been no
crime? Remember: my friend, for a crime to be committed in reality,
there must be a physical injury to someone, or a loss or damage of property!
Most of the disadvantaged, poor underclass are imprisoned for victimless
crimes, due to statutory schemes brought into being by these politicians!
The implications of this process are evil! These poor who live in misery,
trapped in the prison cells, caught up by the system like fish in an evil
net, they are being used, their lives squandered, their time on earth wasted,
in order to furnish the paychecks of the judges and lawyers, and the police
and prison guards, etc., who make their living from these poor who languish
in the cages. While this aspect of the justice system is allowed to exist
and increase in perpetration of these acts
of evil against the American underclass, imprisoning them for statutory
schemes involve no unlawful conduct, where there's no victim, I ask you,
how does it best behoove an honest person to perceive this, justice system??
R: I'm not certain what I do think, not completely, but I see your
points, and I agree with you, as far as prosecution of poor people is concerned,
and their subsequent imprisonment for these victimless offenses. Seen in
this light, as illustrated, it is utterly disgraceful. When dealing with
evil such as this it does not seem desirable that we should respect laws
as much as what's morally right.
Tim: I applaud your humanity. It is a snare to the collective
conscious to believe that such laws can lead to a better society. Such
a foolish delusion! In fact, by means of citizens having respect for the
letter of these laws above and beyond the spirit of moral decency, many otherwise
fine, honorable, patriotic and compassionate Americans, including countless
police officers, prison guards, and others, are daily made the agents of
injustice.
R: Just a minute there, Tim! I didn't follow that last pair. How can
one hold state employees, these policeman and corrections officers for
example, how can they be considered agents of injustice, as you say?
Tim: Well, clearly, these people are trying to earn a decent living
for themselves and their families, for which we should not hold it against
them, but the trouble is that they are serving the state with their bodies
only, never stopping to contemplate the right or wrong of these matters,
never hesitating to make moral distinctions for or against, and as a result
of this, they are as likely to propagate evil without intending to as they
are to serve the ends of justice. Do I make myself clear?
R: Crystal Clear, Tim.
Tim: Tell me, my friend, should we citizens, the public at large,
be relinquishing our sense of morality, suppressing the moral conscious,
to these politicians in the legislature?
R: If the present state of the system is any indication, then I don't
believe we should.
Tim: These people the police officers, corrections officers, the jailers,
and the various support person, serve the state not chiefly as men, but
as machines, with their bodies only. They do not exercise personal discernment
between right or wrong, nor consider the morality of their actions, or
of the process they are a part of. Rather, they perform as sled dogs and
work horses, as beasts of burden; or do you think I exaggerate or mis-speak
in support of my argument?
R: No, I don't suppose that you do at all. To be sure that you say
is quite reasonable.
Tim: Look here, there are now onto two millions of these poor people
in prison in America, the home of the free. Admittedly, some of
that number deserve to be there, certainly, some of whom deserve never to
get out again! But, too, there are hundreds of thousands of these disadvantaged
poor, predominately of the minority, which are caged for offenses where there's
actually no victim, in reality no unlawful conduct committed; and I say,
when oppression of these poor people has become commonplace, where this
mockery of true justice has become organized on a scale and of such a magnitude
as it presently is, then we must begin to speak out against this
process! In a nation which has prided itself, quite rightly, as being the
light for freedom and the cradle of liberty, what hypocrisy
do we now practice?
R: But what are we to do about it?
Tim: We must do justice by these poor who are imprisoned, cost what
it may! If once has unjustly wrestled a life preserver from a drowning man,
then to do justice, one must restore it to him, even if in doing so it
means one will drown oneself!
R: What?! But is it our responsibility to take action to remedy
the evil, as private citizens?
Tim: My dear friend, do we not know, at this late date, that for evil
to triumph over good, it is only necessary that good men and women do
nothing?
R: We do know that, yes, Tim.
'Tim: Then, while it may not be a mans privates duty to devote himself
to righting any, even the greatest of wrongs, I tell you truly, that it
is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of the process, and if he never
again involve myself with it, not to support others who do! While each of
us engage ourselves in the pursuit of what little happiness we can find,
and enjoy the sweetness of our lives, we also must ensure that others do
not do so at the expense of the underclass who are sitting in prison cells
for statutory offenses that are in reality not criminal! Or don't you agree?
R: What obnoxious ignorance could fail to agree with what you have
said? What you say is very moving to me, my friend, and awakens inside
of me a desire to help, if I can so please tell me, what can I do? I am quite
sure that there are many men and women, all good and true, from all walks
of life who would also hasten to assist with righting such wrong, but who
don't know best how to proceed, who fear if they alter the justice process,
that the proposed remedy could turn out to be worse than the present evil!
Tim: But, my friend, listen to what you say, and consider; it would
be the fault of the politicians if that were the case! On the contrary,
no remedy could be instituted worse than the current evils as far as these
victimless, statutory offenses are concerned. Of that we can be confident.
R: But let me ask you, my friend, can we private citizens be faulted
for wanting to live peacefully and not be bothered with these questions?
Tim: For loving peace? No! For ignoring injustice because you can't
be bothered? Yes! Therein lies the dilemma, for the chief trouble is not
wholly with the politicians far off from us in the legislature; the
true source of the trouble stems from each of us, locally, who seeing these
practices, perpetrated against the poor and yet by paying taxes and otherwise
blindly supporting the government while it does these things, like
good little Soviets should, make ourselves guilty under the doctrine of accomplice
liability! Were we at once to begin to speak out against these evil practices,
were we to withdraw our collective support and voice our opposition to what
the government is doing, we would render the politicians completely harmless.
Do you not see in what direction this reasoning tends?
R: I believe I do. What you say is that we must exert democratic action
and refuse to loan our assent to having these wrongs committed in our
name. Is that not right?
Tim: Yes, my friend, precisely!
R: But answer this: What if the lawyers and politicians and these
other interested parties who constitute the status quo, as you said, what
if they violently oppose us for withdrawing our consent? What if
indeed, they go so far as to begin sending us to prison ourselves? What
then?
Tim: Come what may, we must keep to the side of what we know to be
just; we must be brave and stand for what is right, in the face of all
such consequences. When justice is not sufficiently defended, it is overpowered,
and he that does not freely speak the truth is its betrayer! Under a
justice process that imprisons unjustly, the proper place for the just is
also the prison, right along with the poor!
R: I cannot argue with what you say, for I feel you are right, and
that assuredly, we must do something to stop this injustice. But it is such
a huge problem, and at such a late hour, isn't it too little too late?
Tim: Do not consider the size of your actions but only the degree of
justice in them.
R: My mother always said that what is once well done is done forever.
Tim: Your mother was a wise lady Roland.
© Copyright 2003 Timothy Greenlee
The truth about Supermax by Timothy
Comments regarding the Conversation
Days in the life of SHU inmate
Timothy Greenlee
Life in SHU - Malfeasance,
Revenge and The Tour
Life in SHU - Strip Search and Walk of Shame
Phylosophy Truth, Life and Death
Site Map