The TRUTH from a Supermax Prisoner

Timothy Greenlee

Presently I am in a so-called supermaximum security unit called The Secure Housing Unit [SHU]. I have
been in a cage here 24 hours a day since 08-21-01 – and there is no end in sight. Anytime I come out of my
cage for any reason I am handcuffed behind my back and shackled. I am not allowed any commissary items
beyond stamps and cosmetic items. Many of the other prisoners confined here in the SHU are mentally
disturbed, and make it really terrible for those of us who are not mentally disturbed. The staff give these
patients many drugs which they abuse and hype themselves up with – then torment others by their exhibited
insanity and mayhem – screaming and shrieking and banging on their cell doors and fixtures. I’ve written
true accounts of some of my experiences – if you’re interested to use some them I’ll send them to you later. I
have also written a dialogue about the criminal process in general which I would like you to consider using –
I’ll enclose it with this letter to you – it gives much insight from my standpoint, being inside the belly of the
beast.

I use my days and nights as constructively as possible under the conditions of any environment. I engage
myself each day with reading the thoughts of the classical philosophers – philosophy has become me love in
life – as well as astronomy by description. My favorite philosophers are Aristotle, Nietzsche, and Plato. You
might be familiar with Plato’s dialogues? One of the distinctions that Plato often spoke on was the difference
between a philosopher and a “sophist”. Nowadays, sophistry is best demonstrated in the courts, and indeed,
in ancient Greece sophists were basically lawyers. The Athenians, in Plato’s time, had a democracy, which
was direct representation, in other words, there were no legislatures – everyone had equal say and everyone
voted on everything [The reason this was possible is that only citizens could vote which meant no slaves –
the slaves were not as in America based upon race, but were from other conquered peoples – often they were
from other parts of Greece! If you lost in a war, you became a slave to the victor – no women also, and no
non-Athenians. Unlike the USA as well, being born in Athens, even if you were not a slave, or a woman, did
not mean you were a citizen. Rather, citizenship was hereditary. Thus, only about 200-400 people in Athens
were citizens. Of course, direct democracy requires a small number of people]. Now, if you are the rich
landowner , or a general who wants to go into a battle, you must first convince all of the citizens that you are
right. So, you’d hire a teacher in sophistry who would argue your case for you. He would use “rhetoric” in
order to persuade the citizens and presto! – the first lawyers. But, what Plato asked, via the endlessly
interesting figure of Socrates was: “What is the function of the sophist?” The sophist , or lawyer in our
present era, attempts to convince people [a jury]. But a sophist is not concerned with the truth. In fact, the
truth may be his enemy, depending on his position in a controversy. Rather, a sophist is only concerned with
persuasion and will use whatever arguments possible to prevail. On the other hand, a philosopher is a lover of
truth, so the issue would always be: “What is true?” “What is the right thing to do?” Socrates refused to
accept money for his teaching because he said that if he accepted money then he would be compromised to
find a truth based on the interests of where that money came from [Interestingly, Plato – his student and
scribe as Socrates never wrote that we know about – started a school, The Academy, and did accept money].

In our system today, the public views the courts, much like the Athenians did, as a type of game. Like any
professional sports team, the key to winning is being well funded so you can buy the best players. That is to
say, the key to having a successful defense is to be well financed.

Of course, the devastating consequence of this state of affairs is that the poor of society end up with little
or no defense. For Socrates, what is damning about lawyers is that they pass off what is false for what is true.
That is, they don’t say “I am saying this because so-and-so is paying me and it is in his best interests”, but
rather they say “this is true”. But, the issue should always be, for all people, WHAT IS TRUE? For Socrates,
the true and the good were the same thing. In the Socratic mindset, it is not possible for one to be an
intelligent, bad person – if you are bad then you must still be lacking some wisdom – because true
intelligence – THE TRUTH – is always also good [and beautiful too]. It follows from this that people are
bad, not because they are evil, but because they are ignorant. Once you know the truth, Socrates thought you
would necessarily do the right thing.

Lawyers, then, are the last people on the planet who should be involved in deciding a man’s fate since they
are trained not to look for the truth, but to look to win a case. An interesting dialogue on this point is Plato’s
Euthyphro.

Your friend,
Timothy

TO BE IS TO DO – Nietzsche
TO DO IS TO BE – Russell
DO BE DO BE DO – Sinatra ;-)

Take care of yourself!

Tim Greenlee
PCF #865760
PO Box 30
Pendleton, IN 46064
The following are Tim's thoughts and his life in the SHU.

Tim's Philosophy of Life

In ancient Athens, one could have slaves and women were property. This seems very unjust in America
today, but those were different times. To most foreign first world countries, capital punishment is considered
to be grossly unjust, but not to most Americans. Thus, one begins to see that laws have less to do with morals
and more to do with their relevance to the particular society, culture and history. For example, in Iran or
Afghanistan if a woman wears shorts and has premarital sex she is considered a criminal, but this is not the
case in America and Europe. Hence, I might decide, “well, I guess being a criminal doesn’t have any real or
moral or ethical status”. But, then I must ask myself, “How do I know what is right and wrong?” I might
answer, “murder is wrong”, but how do I know it is wrong? Is it just because I have been told it is wrong?
Soldiers and Law Enforcement agents murder millions of men, women and children – and are given medals
for doing the murders, as well as pensions.

Obviously, other societies with different laws think that their laws are right and good, but since I might not
agree, I have to admit – as a reasonable man – that perhaps my notions of right and wrong are just as
ungrounded as other peoples are. And so, my conclusion might be that “there is no universal good or bad, and
it is unreasonable for me to pass judgment on others since I do not even know why I have the ethics I do”.

But, what if I then ask “what about a society where it is permissible to cut off the hands of little children
under the age of five?” Or, “what about a society that finds no ethical dilemma with punishing the poor
because they are poor?” “What about a society where the laws only server the wealthy?” “Are all morals
relative?” Is the notion of justice only an illusion?”

Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle would not have a problem with these issues, but the ancient Greeks did not
have a conception of history quite like we do. Questions of these kind lead one reasonably to conclude, as I
did in the preceding dialogue that the laws should only restrict people from hurting others and should intrude
as little as possible on the individual’s life for the reason that the laws written by rich politicians and lawyers
cannot possible know what is the good life for the under-class and working poor. The laws must intrude only
where one has harmed another [which is clearly not good for the victim]. Practically speaking, we must as a
free society agree that we cannot drive our cars over other people’s children, but if we want to spend out time
worshipping a snake god and consuming hallucinogenic mushrooms, that’s our business.

Perhaps some readers might want to ask Roland and Tim, “Since most people in America are not employed
by the Justice System [more precisely speaking – the Injustice System], why do they permit this ‘evil’ system
to continue?” One indication might be taken from Roland’s statement, “It’s as if scales are falling from my
eyes, Tim!”— the inference being that Americans permit this system to continue because they don’t know
how bad it really is, and have not considered the moral implications of targeting the under-class for
“punishment”.

1. Deterrent
2. Revenge
3. Punishment
4. Making society safe
5. Upholding the laws
I believe that Roland and Tim argue convincingly for the fact that victimless “crimes” do not satisfy numbers
2 and 4 since there are no victims and they aren’t a threat to society to begin with—but what other reasons
might be argued for number 4? A common logical fallacy [something which sounds right but is in fact bad
reasoning] is employed by politicians who are “getting tough on crime”, or in the media to feed a general
hysteria about crime, namely that drug use and crime “go hand in hand”. This [goes this argument] even if a
drug user isn’t a violent offender today, one days he/she will be. Here is the basic underlying argument:

Premise One: Group #1: we find that violent offenders often use drugs or have used drugs.
Premise Two: Group #2: We also find a group of people who just use drugs, but aren’t violent offenders.

Premise Three: If you are in group #2, you are the pool from which group #1 comes.

Conclusion: Therefore, all drug users are potential violent offenders.

Even if we reasonably agree – for the sake of the argument – that premises one and two are correct, the
error is revealed in premise three and the conclusion. This fallacy [which the politicians employ] is called
“AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT”. Any argument of the following form is unsound, IF A, THEN B; B,
THEREFORE A. This fallacy is what logicians call a non-sequitur [Latin meaning: “it does not follow”].
Hence, this argument is wrong:

• If you are violent offender, you do or have used drugs.

• Roland uses drugs.
• Therefore, Roland is, or will be a violent offender.

The truth, of course, is that while past behavior might point to a generality, it is not predictive of the future.

So even if we agree with the first two statements, we are in no way impelled to say that the conclusion is
true. It is faulty reasoning, but unfortunately many people believe it to be a good argument. Thus, many
politicians argue that even if Roland just does drugs by himself in the privacy of his home, one day sooner or
later Roland will go crazy on drugs and shoot people so they may as well lock him up now [and throw away
the key]. This of course does not follow, since you would have to prove a necessary connection between drug
use and violence. In reality, the only logical correlation is the environment that drug deals operate in, which
is caused by drugs being illegal – hence the problem [drug-related-violence] has been created – manufactured
– by the politicians – lawyers who write the laws. If you remove the laws criminalizing drug use, then the
violence would end. This logic is inescapable.

In my dialogue, it was argued that the system was evil – and yet, most people support it! Obviously, America
being the most violent first world country with the most citizens in prison demonstrate that putting the poor
in cages does nothing to deter crime. In Europe, very few offenses will get more than a year and it is rare
even for a murderer to spend a lifetime behind bars. However, this does not mean that Europe is run amuck
with murderers and drug users! As a matter of fact, the murder rate in Europe is negligible compared to
America’s! Therefore, for non-violent offenses, we might agree that #1 – deterrent –cannot be argued for and
#2 and #4 [revenge and making society safe] also cannot be argued for. That leaves us with #3 – punishment
– and #5 – upholding the laws.

As for #5, many argue that the law will never be convenient for poor people, the point being that we each
give up some of our personal freedom to live in a stable society. Without laws [the argument goes] anarchy
would be the norm – hence even if the laws are unfair and evil for the under-class, it is more important to
uphold the laws than that the poor receive justice, because stability is more important to society “contributing
members”. On point to this effect, Plato in his masterpiece REPUBLIC argues that politicians should lie to
the populace to keep them “in their places” in order for the society to be well-functioning. And in a similar
vein, the British philosopher and political
theorist, Thomas Hobbes, in his masterpiece LEVIATHAN, argues that our personal natures are so selfish
and “brutish” that without a strict government the poor would kill one another. To many people the idea that
the majority under-class is subject to the laws written by the lawyers and politicians for benefit of the middle
and upper classes provide a sense of stability in a society where the under-class are so many and varied in
numbers.

Nevertheless, even if one agreed that some kind of laws are necessary – which of course I do agree to—
one can still argue that if the laws are not fair and just to everyone then it cannot really be stabilizing –
instead, as has happened to America’s poor, the laws have become a real threat to life and limb. If the upper-
class are the only ones really protected by the laws, then stability in America is a pipe-dream that one day
must evaporate when the majority under-class wake up.

And what about #3 – punishment? I think this is the most peculiar aspect of America’s love for prisons.
Even though most Americans don’t work in the criminal injustice system [and thus have no economic reason
to support it] they seem to love to think about the poor being punished. My idea about this is that poor
“criminals” become the focus of externalization of negative internal anxiety on the parts of the middle and
upper classes. What I mean is, that as Tim points out in the dialogue at pages 7-9 human existence is
wonderful on our beautiful planet earth, but it is fleeting and we have very little, if any control about what
happens to us or to the people we love. Thus, mankind has a great sense of anxiety in the face of this life.
“How will I protect those I love from tragedy?” “How can I protect myself?” “Why am I born into this
situation of American prosperity while in hell-holes around the world babies slowly starve to death?”

The notion of an evil “criminal” running around with no conscience committing offenses for gain is like
the devil himself walking the streets for a lot of people. “This is what is responsible for my feelings of being
out-of-control” the upper-classes think. In fact, this is what Sigmund Freud calls externalization. A person
has a feeling – affect – within and he/she looks to without to put the origin of this affect because it is more
threatening to come from within. For if pain or discomfort comes from without, one might be able to avoid it.
But, if it stems from within, avoidance becomes impossible. “If only we could look-up all of the criminals, I
could finally feel safe!” Thus do the poor under-class operate as something – an object – which the middle
and upper classes can control [unlike life and existence], since, after all, they can throw us into prisons!

I also think that “criminals” are the focus of personal feelings of helplessness in the face of an indifferent
world. One hears the media and the politicians, and other empty-headed fools, speak of the victimization of
the poor by the injustice system as if it were a war going on, i.e. “In a war, innocents die,” “collateral
damage”, etc. Indeed, it is a “war on drugs” going on! They calmly say, smugly secure with nice clothes, a
bank account, warm homes, full bellies, “most of them are guilty! The rest haven’t been caught yet!” But the
truth is that imprisoning the poor for victimless offenses is hardly something one can compare to a war.

Or perhaps, as with Tim’s notion of time being the most precious and valuable thing, in the dialogue,
punishing the under-class gives the upper-class the feeling of exerting control over time which stops for no
one – perhaps it is an attempt to control time by controlling the life-times of the poor through prison
sentences.
 Days in the life of SHU inmate Timothy Greenlee
Friday, April 25th, 2003.

About 9.00 am Officers C. Wright and Phillippe came to my cell and demanded, "Do you want recreation?" I
replied, "Yes".

Wright gave me a dirty look and said, "It's raining outside" as if that would seal the deal against my going -or
he hoped it would. (They look for any reason to not do their job.)

I replied, "I don't care about the rain; I need to run". I placed my hands behind my back and out through the
cuff-port, and I was handcuffed; and with the dog-leash ("good doggie") attached to my handcuffs, my door
magically opened and I stepped out.

Surprise! The control pod was jammed full of high school kids who were staring at me intently drinking in
this "maximum control" routine, their young faces pressed eagerly up against the safety glass. I Was the star
in a much acclaimed thriller of schoolChildren. I glanced a few times at the faces staring at me, and I could
clearly see excitement, fear, fascination there -all of these feelings. This was better than reality TV: look at
that dangerous criminal there! My thirty seconds of stage time ended with my being placed outside onto the
exercise yard and uncuffed. Thus freed, I immediately began to jog laps around the concrete enclosure (I had
already stretched my back, calves, and legs earlier.), my feet splashing up water with every stride, the rain
immediately soaking my clothing and running down my face. The surveillance camera above me (the eye in
the sky) relayed my orbit to a video monitor inside the control pod, which, no doubt, the school kids were
now watching intently commenting on my obvious insanity for going outside and running around in circles in
this little rectangular enclosure in the cold rain -around and around and around in circles. This guy is really
crazy! He's just like some of those wild animals in cages at the zoo, or like those captured wild beasts we see
on the Discovery Channel. He's obviously dangerous! And from their perspective I suppose that I did look
pretty strange, my actions seemingly crazy. And indeed the rain pouring down on me was cold, but between it
and my body heat an equilibrium was soon found as I jogged. My attention focused inward and my thoughts
were soon lost in spatial timelessness. I lost track of the number of laps I jogged in that time, perhaps thirty
minutes. When I stopped and looked into the window (a 6" by 2 1/2' "slit") the "tour" was ended -and only
the lone guard was left in the control pod, automaton-like, manipulating door controls. Their thrills over with
this day, those kids were probably heading back to their school- my predicament and normal (yeah, right)
everyday actions would make a unique conversation piece for weeks to come -and with each re-telling of the
experience I would no doubt become bigger, uglier, meaner looking, my stare full of hate as I visually
menaced them and struggled against my captors.

Sunday, April 27th, 2003.

At approximately 5.00 am this morning the "psyche patient" living in cell 606 began cutting himself, all over
his body, with some kind of metal object, which hasn't been recovered -he probably flushed it down the toilet.
He was subsequently taken to the outside hospital. This psychotic prisoner's name is Mark Hughes. He cut
his anus open with a jagged piece of metal they say. Holy cow, Batman! And do you want to hear his
crowning achievement? After he cut himself all over -arms, face, legs, torso, anus (are you on the edge of
your seat yet?) -he smeared feces into all of the cuts! Talk about crazy! After he was brought back from
hospital he was placed on so-called "suicide watch", meaning that for the next 72 hours a guard will be
sitting in front of his cell observing him constantly. (They will rotate on 12 hour shifts.) He is totally
"stripped out", meaning that he is allowed only a blanket and a mattress -nothin else.

Do you think this was bad? Well. yes it was. But later on, about 8.00 am, another "psyche patient", this one
living in cell 607, somehow inserted not one but TWO plastic pen fillers into his penis! The pen fillers are
about five inches long, but I don't know whether he cut one in pieces or what. I know that they took him to
the outside hospital to remove the plastic from his urethra. In consequence of these strange incidents, the
officer in charge, either Sergeants van Arsdale or Merritt, canceled all exercise yard periods and showers for
the rest of B-east.

What a bunch of lazy bastards! They look for ANY excuse to cancel shower and out-of-cell time. The fact of
these two patients being taken to the outside hospital could not affect the other operations of the SHU. Thus,
for the rest of the day, that is for 12 hours straight, being paid over $11 an hour, every one of these guards sat
on their invariably fat, saggy asses out in the main hallway and "bullshitted". Meanwhile, it was sunny and
75 degrees outside! About 2.00 pm Sergeant van Arsdale and his "little-pard" officer Horton came sauntering,
yes SAUNTERING, by my cell. Horton peered in at me.

Then van Arsdale stopped and peered in at me and with a "shit-eating" grin on his face said, "You doin'
alright in there, Greenlee?" to which I responded, "Hell no. Put me out on the exercise yard. You obviously
have nothing else to do." He replied, "Can't do it. We have too many men trying to hurt themselves." And
then he walked away smiling his "shit- eating" grin.

These fuckers are evil. The killing part of it is that he will get away with it, like he has hundreds of times
before. These guards are being paid to do a job that they are not doing. Thus, the taxpayers are being
swindled while at the same time I am being arbitrarily denied constitutional rights a little bit at a time. My
statutory, that is "state created", rights are being over-ruled by a bunch of lazy, corrupt hillbillies who "get
their rocks off" on committing petty acts of cruelty against prisoners, many of whom are mentally
defenseless. The world does not see what goes on here inside the SHU. It's like a Black Hole -little
information escapes. Who are the real criminals here?

Monday, April 28th, 2003.

Out to the exercise yard about 8.00 am. It was sunny and about 60 degrees. I ran 250 laps straight. I glanced
up at the Sojourner who has been hard at work constructing a new web or rather enhancing what was left of
its murdered mother's. When I came back inside I was "allowed" a shower. Once in the shower I was quickly
lost in my own thoughts but after perhaps ten minutes got around to shaving. So there I was standing at the
see-through shower door, approximately seven to eight feet from the Control Pod, naked as the day I was
born with my face lathered up ready for my shave when I glanced at the Control Pod, and, surprise, there was
a group of perhaps ten high school girls staring at me, or more precisely speaking, staring at my anatomy.
Some were laughing and giggling, as young girls are known to do, while others were just staring, seemingly
mesmerised. For my own part, what could I do but smile and wave? Some waved back red-faced while others
turned their backs in embarrassment. But some continued to enjoy the view! Hence I starred in a rated-x
"feature" today. I must admit that when I became aware of the girls staring at me, the physiological response
was immediate -in seconds my penis was stiff! In modesty, I put on my wet boxer shorts that I had just
washed out by hand (I didn't have a towel because laundry is turned in on Sunday nights and returned on
Monday nights and I only have two towels).

Then once some of the psychotic patients noticed the "tour" going on inside the Control Pod, all hell broke
loose! Scores of patients began screeching obscenities, banging on cell doors and their cell fixtures, etc. the
noise was deafening -and I had to endure the full brunt of the decibel level because in the shower" don't wear
my earplugs.

I long for the time when I will be able to enjoy relative solitude again. This is too much for anyone to bear
indefinitely. I can only imagine the stories those girls will tell about the naked man they saw in the shower
today. I do know, at least, what one feature of their story will be -for I am very well endowed!
 Malfeasance
One of the psycho patients over here, Wayne Morris, cell 606, was taken out to the exercise yard about 30
minutes ago. The guards came back to get him and he refused to “cuff up” in order to be re-secured into his
cell. He was screaming profanities at the guards. They went and got a video camera and ordered him to cuff
up, but he refused again. The Sergeant, Van Arsdale, ordered an Extraction Team to “suit up”. Several
minutes later, the psycho patient called for an officer and told him he would cuff up. After a few more
minutes, about five guards, along with a nurse, cuffed the patient and took him out to the core area and put
him in “the holding cell” – where they injected him with a drug and put him back into his cage. As a result of
this incident, no one else has been taken to the exercise yard, and no more showers have been carried out.
The guards will use this incident as an excuse to do nothing else today – no more exercise periods or showers
will be run – except sit out in the main hallway and tell jokes, gossip, look at sex books they have confiscated
from SHU inmates during “shakedowns”, and play cards. And it is only 9:10AM -- and they work 12-hour
shifts – they’ll be here until 6:00PM tonight – but they will cheat us out of getting any short relief from these
cages, of exercise and a breath of fresh air. “What a world, what a world, I’m melting, melting….”

It’s now 5:10PM – no other showers or exercise periods were allowed anywhere on B-east because of the one
disturbance that happened at 9:00AM this morning. These guards are making $11.00 an hour with 100% Blue
Cross Blue Shield coverage, for doing NOTHING. That is to say, they are being paid very well for a job,
which they are not doing. And how cruel it is to abuse us inside these cages! People cannot imagine what it is
like to be in this cell 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, month after month, year after year. That trip to the
shower and especially the trip to the exercise yard come to loom large indeed on the list of THINGS TO DO
TODAY. Looking forward to this brief intermission, planning on it, WAITING on it, on this that I am very
much entitled to [it is a right written into the Indiana Code] only to have it nonchalantly snatched away for
any whim or excuse by guards who have no understanding about this meaning of it, and who could not
possibly care any less, inserts the HERE WE HAVE IT into malfeasance, not to mention abject cruelty.

Revenge
03-30-03 Revenge

I was taken out to the “exercise yard” today, which is merely a 20’ x 10’ [I measured 25 x 12 ½ of my size
eleven slippers] rectangular concrete-block enclosure, with ½ of the roof open to the sky except for steel
meshing. There’s a video camera out there whereby one is “monitored”. For exercise, I ran in circles along
the wall 150 times, which I figure equals roughly a mile and a half.

Some offender, somehow, got his hands on a black magic marker, sometime in the past, and wrote in four-
inch high, block letters on the concrete blocks:

GET YOUR REVENGE ON THE STREETS

KILL THE PIGS!

This got one to thinking about the true state of affairs concerning this SHU, i.e. “what’s REALLY going on
in here”. I wished that I could get my hands on a tape recorder and a video recorder so that I could document
the daily conduct of SHU guards and their treatment of SHU prisoners, including, especially, how they treat
the psycho patients. The public at large would absolutely freak out! Man, don’t they know that 90% of these
crazy, i.e. criminally insane patients are going to be released back into an unsuspecting society, some very
soon? These guards and SHU administration as well as the Indiana D of C apparently don’t give it a thought,
rather, they literally TORTURE us in here in all kinds of ways; acting as if we were confined in here solely
for their entertainment, for their amusement – and there is no oversight. This is the breeding ground of
terrible crimes to come, crimes that will certainly be committed on an unsuspecting public, on innocent
unknowing men, women, and children. That message on the exercise yard wall – GET YOUR REVENGE IN
THE STREETS – had been painted over with white latex paint [white-washed] but the message had bled
back through – and that got me to thinking too: about 60 or 90 days before a prisoner is released from the
SHU back into society a so-called “transition coordinator” stops by in front of ones cage “to chat” for a few
minutes about once every two weeks, asks questions, gives info etc., as if this will or could, make the
slightest difference to one after being psychologically conditioned to hate over a period of years by SHU
guards and administration. Just as that message written on the wall of the exercise yard – GET YOUR
REVENGE IN THE STREETS – had bled back through the thin coat of paint, which was a feeble attempt to
cover it up, likewise the torture and physical abuse, the isolation and sensory deprivation throughout months
and years in the SHU, will also bleed back through any such twice monthly [white wash] chat with a
“transition coordinator”. What a joke. Man, the public just doesn’t know! Most of these guys, probably 80%,
are on mind-altering drug, urge-suppressing drugs [“dummy-dope”] administered to them 3 or more times a
day by the SHU staff. And these patients – some of them – get a hold of razorblades and CARVE on
themselves. Some stick ink-pen fillers [which is all we are given with which to write] into their penises or
rectums – one must perhaps witness these occurrences here to believe that men could do these types of things
to themselves, albeit after being driven insane after years of enduring abject cruelty, on a regular basis. Once
these individuals are mandatorily released, and again, 90% of them will be, it will be someone [or one’s]
other than himself that they’ll most likely be carving on – i.e. some poor citizen who knows nothing about
how the victimizer – defendant had been conditioned, bred-to-it, through this SHU.

When I was led back inside to my cage [handcuffed behind my back with a dog-leash attached thereto]
after my one hour on the exercise yard, I discovered that Officer K. Hasky had torn my things apart, again, in
a shakedown; but fortunately nothing was destroyed or taken this time. This is a regular occurrence: if one
chooses to run the gauntlet by coming out of ones cage for an exercise period or a shower, one is assured;
absolutely guaranteed, of having their cell torn to smithereens by these guards – although, to be sure, some
staff are worse than others. This is the method they employ to dissuade – really, COERCE—one not to take
advantage of the statutory-based right to a shower and one-hour period of exercise – more time for the guards
to sit on their asses out in the core-area or main hallway and “shoot the shit” with one another, i.e. play cards,
look at adult magazines, etc.. But, to hell with them; they may just as well get it through their heads that I’m
going to the exercise yard and to the shower EVERY OPPORTUNITY I GET. One cannot help but feel
violated, though, when one returns to find ones things ransacked and mistreated [if not damaged, destroyed]
or “confiscated” just because you needed some fresh air or a shower. And, believe it, these SHU guards will
bend over backwards looking for something – anything – that they can rationalize taking from you, in order
to “show you”, and often one will receive a bogus “conduct report” for something being “altered” or
“damaged” – even though it wasn’t altered or damaged when one left ones cell. What a tangled life-web
these staff-members weave in here in the SHU, and what pedigree of animal they are breeding for society to
choose from.

The Tour

Tuesday April 8, 2003 – 2:00PM – This early afternoon and I was sitting here on my bunk reading Plato’s
Republic, Book V, when the range was invaded by about ten of what I took to be college students, all males,
who were “touring”, looking in at us “creatures”. Speaking for myself, I felt very embarrassed and stripped
of dignity. I was put on “display” for the amusement of a bunch of snot-noses who smiled and smirked at one
another – no doubt intoxicated with feelings of superiority over us slaves [or should I say guinea pigs?].

These youngsters stared, thrilled, captivated; this was the stuff you saw on T.V.! Far-out! I tried to ignore
them, my face red with embarrassment, but it was, finally, impossible to do. In silent protest, I extended the
middle finger of my left hand, and maintained this pose for the duration of this outrage – they seemed to
understand my point of view, at the end, for they avoided looking at me and my message. I would rather have
talked to them, but that would never be allowed. I thought it a lost opportunity, an additional “shame”, that
these young men would not receive, as Paul Harvey says, “the REST, of the story”, from my side of the
plexiglass covered cell-door. Most likely, they wouldn’t believe me anyway, or if they did begin to believe
me, they’d probably think, as the majority of Americans seem to, “you deserve it!” It’s an artificially
inseminated mentality of “Us against Them”, “Good vs. Evil”.

The existential philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche thought that humans enjoy punishment because we like
punishing people, not because we want reform. To Nietzsche we are perverse and unnatural animals. Animals
are neither good nor evil. Do we praise or blame a fox for killing and eating a partridge? Do we punish a cat
for killing a mouse, indeed for tormenting it beforehand? What is the relationship between violence and
punishment? Animals seem to be violent for their own good, but human animals seem to be violent in most
cases just to be violent. Our animal nature cannot absolve us from the ways we sometimes torment others OF
OUR KIND, and thus are we unreasonable and unnatural. Behaviorists explain animal behavior as inter alia
arising from the urge to procreate and the will to survive, and thus demonstrate that animal behavior makes
sense. If humans were merely complicated animals would I be punished with extreme isolation such as I’ve
been subjected to these previous two years of my life? Fro my standpoint, the housing under these conditions
of non-violent prisoners in particular, and then treating us like wild lions and tigers, makes no sense. It is sure
that these deprivations of social intercourse and recreational activities, for years on end, are
counterproductive to the notion of reformation, and what’s worse, is creating antisocial personalities in men
who must someday return to society to assimilate and “make it in the streets”. The “Us against Them”
mentality and the engaging in these impractical and unnatural “programs” to modify the psyche of “societal
outcasts” is quite simply mad! “Why does SHU staff do things to torment me? Do they derive some perverse
glee from shaming me?” Does cruelty derive from the same source as that from which comes the will and
drive for benefiting mankind? Possibly some form of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde thing.

"What is true love?"

I thought that what you said concerning romance was spot-on, "…Romance is something beautiful and it
makes life so much nicer, but sometimes I believe that true (pure) friendship (without erotism) values even
more…"

I have received many letters from gay men, who have read my ad on the internet (PrisonPenPals) and who
were looking for romance in their lives, wanting to strike up a relationship with me in hopes, that they could
obtain…whatever.

Many prisoners prey upon such gay men in this way, i.e. they "lead on them" into hoping/believing that
they've found romance and that the future holds promise of a passionate relationship etc. upon their release,
when in reality it is only a scam for them to obtain money orders and gifts, etc. I have always been honest
with everyone, who wrote to me – I've never pretended to be something that I wasn't, i.e. homosexual; I have
found a couple of good people, who continued to write me after I dashed their hope about romance and who
became friends, who ended up writing me for the enjoyment of, perhaps, intellectual stimulation, i.e., I write
a lot about philosophy and astronomy, etc. and we ended up with something, as you mentioned "valued even
more than romance", i.e. mutual respect, admiration, platonice friendship and companionship. This is very
rare.

Philosophers have debated much throughout time concerning the nature of love, and have made some
fascinating conclusions. Some of them deny that love exists at all, and I must admit that some of their
arguments in support of such a perspective are very persuasive. Most people never analyse life much at all,
and as a result never distinguish their feelings for what they really are, sometimes leading to unhappy lives,
marriages, etc., i.e. as I implied above, I have come to believe that there is a difference [that many people
would be helped in recognizing] between sexual attraction, friendship, emotional attachment and LOVE [real
love, I think, is rare].

We can be stimulated sexually by certain someones and engage in satisfying sexual activities, but not feel any
deep attraction to the individual as a person: that is not love.

We can share a hobby or an interest with another person and enjoy resulting mutual activities, but not feel
any affection for that person: that is not love.

We can possess psychological attachment for a person on the basis of our needs: but that is not love.

All of these states can be [and are] elements in love, I think, but the popular expressions of people assert that
these elements are in fact "love", but I disagree for the reasons stated. I think that there is a causal
relationship between "true" love and morality. I think such a relationship reveals something of nature of love
in general. I think that true love has as its focus the welfare of the OTHER person – though of course the
degrees differ in many types of relationships. But, in reality human beings often find it very difficult to love
others, it being much simpler to hate others, as history illustrates – i.e. laws are enacted in order to IMPOSE
morality [a state of love] on peoples. Therefore, my immediate thoughts tend to be that, negatively, most of
what is thought to be love,is in fact not.

The western idea of romantic love is somewhat of an illusion, then, and I think that upon close analysis is
found to consist of a range of sexual and psychological needs of two individuals each of whom looks to the
other to satisfy. So for me, sexual attraction isn't love, nor is friendship love. Emotional attachment, when it
is the satisfying of ones psychological needs is also not love. I really believe that the fundamental
characteristic of love is the caring of the other and doing what one can to promote the well-being of the
individual even at a cost to oneself. Yes, I know that this view is very demanding, and perhaps unrealistic, but
it is what logical reasoning tells me on the subject.

Don't we de-value the term "love", if we do not acknowledge that it carries within its meaning the most noble
aspirations of which humans are capable? Of course very few of us ever aspire and develop the ability to love
in this sense. [….]
 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.

Indiana Offender Database Search http://www.in.gov/apps/indcorrection/ofs/ofs?offnum=865760&search2....

Offender Data

TIMOTHY GREENLEE
DOC Number 865760
First Name TIMOTHY
Middle Name
Last Name GREENLEE
Suffix
Date of Birth 01/31/1968
Gender Male
Race White
Facility/Location Pendleton Correctional Facility
Earliest Possible Release Date * 12/07/2035
*Offenders scheduled for release
on a Monday, Tuesday or
Wednesday are released on
Monday. Offenders scheduled for
release on a Thursday, Friday,
Saturday or Sunday are released
on Thursday. Offenders whose
release date falls on a Holiday are
released on the first working day
prior to the Holiday.

Sentence Information

Date of Sentence 01/04/1994

Description ATTEMPTED/ MURDER

Term in Years / Months / Days 60 00 00000

Type of Conviction FA

Indiana Citation Code 35-41-5-1

Cause Number 82C01-9309-CF-00525

1 of 4 07/23/09 7:51 PM
Indiana Offender Database Search http://www.in.gov/apps/indcorrection/ofs/ofs?offnum=865760&search2....

County of Conviction VANDERBURGH

Projected Release Date 12/07/2035

Sentence Information

Date of Sentence 01/04/1994

Description ESCAPE

Term in Years / Months / Days 04 00 00000

Type of Conviction FC

Indiana Citation Code 35-44-3-5

Cause Number 82C01-9308-CF-00477

County of Conviction VANDERBURGH

Projected Release Date 08/19/1997

Sentence Information

Date of Sentence 01/04/1994

OPERATING A VEHICLE WHILE

Description
INTOXICATED

Term in Years / Months / Days 01 00 00000

Type of Conviction MA

Indiana Citation Code 9-11-2-2

Cause Number 82C01-9308-CF-00477

County of Conviction VANDERBURGH

Projected Release Date 02/18/1994

Sentence Information

Date of Sentence 02/27/1990

Description ARSON

2 of 4 07/23/09 7:51 PM
Indiana Offender Database Search http://www.in.gov/apps/indcorrection/ofs/ofs?offnum=865760&search2....

Term in Years / Months / Days 00 05 00018

Type of Conviction FB

Indiana Citation Code 35-43-1-1

Cause Number 86-CR-391

County of Conviction VANDERBURGH

Projected Release Date 05/21/1990

Sentence Information

Date of Sentence 02/27/1990

Description THEFT,RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY

Term in Years / Months / Days 01 00 00000

Type of Conviction FD

Indiana Citation Code 35-43-4-2

Cause Number 82DO1-8906-CF-227

County of Conviction VANDERBURGH

Projected Release Date 05/21/1991

Comments

This database was last updated 07/23/2009

Data Descriptions

DOC Number DOC Number refers to the identification number given to each
Indiana offender upon incarceration.

Description "Offense" refers to the crimes for which the offender is, or was
most recently, incarcerated. "ATT" indicates "attempted;" "CON"
indicates "conspiracy to commit;" and "AID" indicates "Aiding".
Duplicate entries indicate additional counts of the same crime.

3 of 4 07/23/09 7:51 PM
Indiana Offender Database Search http://www.in.gov/apps/indcorrection/ofs/ofs?offnum=865760&search2....

County of "Committing County" is the county in which the offender was

Conviction sentenced.

Date of Sentence "Date of Sentence" is the date in which the sentence was issued
by the court.

Any person, agency or entity, public or All complaints regarding the accuracy of
private, who reuses, publishes or information contained in these
communicates the information available from documents should be submitted, in
this server shall be solely liable and writing, to the:
responsible for any claim or cause of action
based upon or alleging an improper or Indiana Department of
inaccurate disclosure arising from such
Correction
reuse, re-publication or communication,
including but not limited to actions for 302 West Washington Street
defamation and invasion of privacy. IGCS, Room E334
Indianapolis, IN 46204

4 of 4 07/23/09 7:51 PM