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
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 Greenlee
A Conversation with
Timothy Greenlee
Comments regarding
the Conversation Timothy Greenlee
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