Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00751)

Robert Blake, unlikely former star of the TV show Barette since is so 
damn mud igly, apparently wants to do the crime without doing the 
time. But comes now a joked who did the time and he didn't do the 
crime!

It was reported on the news last night that an innocent man was
imprisoned for twenty years for a crime he did not commit. Not
understanding the logic of the law (if there is such a thing) he
decided to remove himself from the prison where he should not have
been in the first place because he had not done anything. The
logic of the law calls removing yourself from a facility where you
have been wrongly imprisoned "escaping" and they regard that as a
worse crime than the crime he never committed which got him put
into prison in the first place.

So now instead of imprisoning him for a crime he did not commit,
they could imprison him for a crime he did commit, namely, leaving
the scene of a false imprisonment for a crime he did not commit. 
The way an attorney explained it, it doesn't make any difference
whether you are innocent or not. You're guilty anyway. Case
closed. Pardon me while I oyez a few times. Oyez oyez oyez. Does 
anyone know what that word means? Is anyone out there a laywer?

Do you have a headache yet? Well, the upshot is that now, after
twenty years of incarceration the State has decided it has no
further interest in holding an innocent man and has turned him
loose. There is some question whether he will be allowed to remain
free, since he is not only innocent but dangerously so, and we may
not want dangerous people on the streets, if you all know what I
mean. Of course anyone reviewing this case would suspect it is the
dangerous people who are on the streets and the non-dangerous
people who are being locked up. The State is currently cogitating
over this difficult dilemma and may offer the fellow clemency. 
That does indeed seem like the appropriate thing to do with a man
who never did anything wrong to begin with, yes sir-ee.

Now what bugs me about all this is that the taxpayer paid for an
innocent man to have a luxurious room, delicious prison meals, a
fantastic view, paid training in making license plates and homemade
knives, color television, lots of practice with whatever self-
defence skills he might have, free medical care if he did not have
any, and outstanding educational opportunities, not to mention the
opportunity to rub elbows (and rub much else besides) with some
really colorful people, a few of whom were probably guilty of
something illegal. There is no good reason to believe they were
guilty, mind you, but the law of averages says there should have
been at least a few miscreants in there somewhere. And he got all
these taxpayer-subsidized goodies despite the fact that he was
innocent. That bugs me because we are only supposed to provide
these splendid advantages free of charge to guilty people. 
Innocent people are supposed to have to pay through the nose for
this stuff.

Well, as a taxpayer I am outraged. I submit that the only way to
correct this problem is to throw the ex-con a free one. Yes,
that's right, I am suggesting that he be allowed to rob a bank,
unmolested by the police, and get away with a million dollars,
maybe even two or three million. He can then forfeit the money to
the Department of Prisons and pay for all that free stuff he got
for the last twenty years at my expense despite the fact that he
was ineligible to collect free stuff by reason of innocence.

Or he could just give it to me, since it is my tax money he has
been living off of all that time. I'll just take two millo, thank 
you, and he can spend the rest as he sees fit. Probably n another 
state.