A Conversation                                   by Timothy Greenlee

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

Timothy Greenlee #865760
W.V.C.F
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838