You are browsing the archive for racism.

Willful Ignorance is A Serious Threat to Human Survival

11:25 am in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

Cross posted from the Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

A dunce cap on a stool in a corner.

Willful ignorance endangers human survival.

I believe willful ignorance is a serious threat to human survival and we need to do something about it.

I also believe religious fundamentalists, racists, people who worship authority while demonizing those who do not, global-warming and climate-change deniers, people who exploit others for profit, and the right-wing-hate-machine form a category 5 hurricane of dense stupidity that we must penetrate and dissipate with light and love or perish.

Consider three examples:

(1) Al Jazeera reports: On Sunday in Khartoum, Sudan, Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag, 27, was sentenced to death by hanging for committing the crime of apostasy by marrying a Christian man. She was also convicted of adultery and sentenced to 100 lashes because the Islamic court does not recognize her marriage and she is eight months pregnant pregnant with her husband’s child. The court gave her until today to agree to leave her husband and renounce her Christian faith, but she refused. She told the judge,

I am a Christian and I never committed apostasy.

The judge imposed this willfully ignorant, bizarre and inhumane decision because sharia demands it, even though she was raised by her Christian mother and considers herself a Christian. Her father was Muslim and absent from her life. The sentence will be carried out after the child is born.

The goddess Ma’at is not amused by this fool’s effort to do justice.

(2) The Business Standard reports on a new study published today in Nature that documents a poleward shift of 33 to 39 miles per decade over the past 30 years of the geographical location where tropical cyclones reach their maximum intensity. This shift increases the probability and associated risk of extreme damage caused by winds, surges and floods to heavily populated coastal cities.

This unsettling news must be considered together with the recently reported news by scientists at NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory that the meltdown of the West Antarctic Glacier is an unstoppable chain reaction that will raise world sea level.

A new study by researchers at NASA and the University of California, Irvine, finds a rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in an irreversible state of decline, with nothing to stop the glaciers in this area from melting into the sea.

The study presents multiple lines of evidence, incorporating 40 years of observations that indicate the glaciers in the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica ‘have passed the point of no return,’ according to glaciologist and lead author Eric Rignot, of UC Irvine and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. The new study has been accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

These glaciers already contribute significantly to sea level rise, releasing almost as much ice into the ocean annually as the entire Greenland Ice Sheet. They contain enough ice to raise global sea level by 4 feet (1.2 meters) and are melting faster than most scientists had expected. Rignot said these findings will require an upward revision to current predictions of sea level rise.

‘This sector will be a major contributor to sea level rise in the decades and centuries to come,’ Rignot said. ‘A conservative estimate is it could take several centuries for all of the ice to flow into the sea.’

Meanwhile, a willfully ignorant, bizarre and inhumane Marco Rubio announced this week that he does not believe in global warming or climate change and he’s ready to be president:

Read the rest of this entry →

Theodore Wafer ordered to stand trial for killing Renisha McBride

9:34 am in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

Cross Posted From Frederick Leatherman Law Blog*

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Good morning:

MSNBC is reporting today that a Michigan judge ordered Theodore Wafer, 54, to stand trial for murder in the second degree and manslaughter for shooting Renisha McBride, 19, to death in the face with a shotgun on November 2nd.

He is white and she was black.

Judge David Turfe said Thursday that based on the evidence presented, Wafer made a poor decision in shooting McBride, and he failed to pursue other “reasonable opportunities to defend himself,” including calling the police for help.

“He chose to shoot rather than not answer the door,” the judge said.

McBride had been drinking heavily earlier in the evening and crashed her vehicle into a parked car approximately a half-mile from Wafer’s house three hours before she knocked on Wafer’s door.

The New York Daily News is reporting:

A witness said McBride was bleeding and holding her head, but that she walked away from the scene before an ambulance arrived. It’s still unclear, at least publicly, what she did between the time of the car wreck and her arrival on Wafer’s porch.

An autopsy found McBride had a blood-alcohol level of about 0.22, more than twice the legal limit for driving. She also had been smoking marijuana.
Her best friend, Amber Jenkins, 18, said they were drinking vodka and playing cards seven to eight hours before the shooting was reported to 911.

Wafer opened the inner door and shot her through the screen door in the face from a distance of about two feet.

Assistant Wayne County Medical Examiner Kilak Kesha testified that her injuries were so severe that he “couldn’t even reconstruct the brain.”

The result of this preliminary hearing is not surprising because she was unarmed and Wafer had admitted to police that he shot her after he opened the door in response to her knocking on it.

The purpose of the hearing was for the judge to determine whether probable cause existed to believe Wafer committed the crimes charged. There was zero chance that the judge would have dismissed the charges on that set of facts.

Defense counsel did what defense counsel all over the country do at a preliminary hearing. They used it to obtain discovery about the prosecution’s case and cross examine their witnesses under oath locking them into their stories.

Defendant did not testify and defense counsel did not put on any witnesses at the preliminary hearing. This is standard operating procedure, so no surprises there. Nothing good can come from locking your client into his story and opening him up to cross examination by a great white shark in a dress before you know if the prosecution has the ace of trumps.

That would be malpractice.

Wafer and his defense team appear to have a choice-of-defense dilemma. He initially told police that he accidentally fired his shotgun. However, his lawyers argued that the judge should dismiss the charges because the evidence introduced at the hearing was consistent with self-defense.

I did not get that impression and neither did the judge. Unless a person is predisposed to believe that an unarmed black female teenager knocking on their door at 4:30 am is a threat and should be shot in the face, and I am talking about white racists, I do not believe the evidence supports a claim of self-defense.

The prosecutor didn’t mess around; She went for the jugular.

Wayne County assistant prosecutor Danielle Hagaman-Clark said it’s “ridiculous” to believe that Wafer was deeply afraid but still decided to open the door and fire instead of first calling the police.

“He shoved that shotgun in her face and pulled the trigger,” Hagaman-Clark said.

Read the rest of this entry →

CNN article promotes racist description of Trayvon Martin case

7:57 am in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

Cross posted from Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

Protesters hold a 'We Are Trayvon Martin' banner.

A Trayvon Martin "Million Hoodies" rally last year.

Thanks to all who participated in yesterday’s memorial to Trayvon Martin.

I write today to express disgust and dismay regarding this excuse for journalism by Steve Almasy of CNN, Zimmerman’s lawyer works to dispel racial overtones in Trayvon Martin case.

The focus of the piece is Mark O’Mara’s “struggle” to get people to pay attention to the evidence instead of racism.

Whatever the outcome of the Trayvon Martin case, it will be viewed less as a determination of the shooter’s guilt or innocence and more as a victory or loss for civil rights, George Zimmerman’s lawyer fears.

Mark O’Mara said he has been busy trying to dispel the racial overtones in the case by getting out more evidence about his client.

Thereafter, we get the usual he-said-she-said description of the case interspersed with O’Mara’s unchallenged mischaracterizations of the evidence followed up with this description of Benjamin Crump as a rabble rousing troublemaker pushing the race card.

O’Mara indicated at trial he will dissect the recording of Zimmerman’s 911 call and point to evidence of the wounds Zimmerman said he suffered that night.

“I believe, you know, again, the evidence is what it is and that’s for a jury to determine,” O’Mara said. “But a close reading or looking at that tape and all the evidence that followed, particularly George’s injuries and Trayvon’s lack of injuries but for the fatal gunshot, suggest that George did not begin the fight, did not continue the fight and actually was the victim of the attack rather than the other way around.”

But a lawyer for the Martins said the fight against “senseless gun violence” will continue.

“He went home and slept in his bed the night he killed Trayvon,” attorney Benjamin Crump said. “And that wasn’t equal justice.”

Crump then led a chant of “Hoodies up! Hoodies up!” at the vigil.

This false concoction is presented with a cherry on top in the form of the optically distorted and likely photoshopped digital photo of the defendant seated in the back seat of a patrol vehicle with a bump on his nose and blood on his mustache. CNN has no excuse for not knowing that the photo presents a false picture because the police photos taken at the station house a few hours later with a much better camera under good lighting show a barely visible injury with little or no swelling or distortion to the shape of the nose.

As all of us know, despite conceding that his client was the aggressor, O’Mara has been shoving his demonstrably false “bloody” photograph in front of every camera he can find in pursuit of his easy-to-disprove false narrative that the peaceful and nonviolent Trayvon for no apparent reason attacked and attempted to kill the defendant with his bare hands in the middle of his phone conversation with his girlfriend after successfully running away from the defendant who had been stalking him in a vehicle and then on foot contrary to a police dispatcher’s warning.

The simple truth is this defendant has no defense and the only mystery in this case is why anyone believes that the he did not hunt, confront, and murder Trayvon Martin for the heinous crime of walking while Black in the rain with his hoodie up.

I said long ago and I will repeat it today:

Anyone who believes the defendant is innocent is a racist and anyone who contributes money to his defense is a stupid racist.

Let there be no mistake: Although he claims otherwise, Mark O’Mara and his client are deliberately appealing to racial hatred and fear of young Black males to literally get away with murder.

That is what this case is all about and shame on CNN for not reporting the truth.

Read the rest of this entry →

Zimmerman Did Not Shoot Trayvon Martin In Self-Defense

2:10 pm in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

George Zimmerman claims that he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense to prevent Martin from seriously injuring or killing him. According to news reports, Martin punched him in the nose fracturing it and was slamming the back of his head against a sidewalk when he shot him. The police and the prosecutor’s office agreed that he killed Martin in self-defense because the police released him after interviewing him about the circumstances of the shooting and the prosecution did not seek a grand jury indictment charging him with a crime.

Let’s take a look at Florida’s stand-your-ground self-defense statute to determine whether we agree or disagree with their decision.

The stand-your-ground law in Florida simply means that a person has no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense.

The Florida statute provides:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

(Emphasis supplied)

Florida Statute 776.013(3) adds two important conditions; namely, the person who uses deadly force must not be engaged in unlawful activity and must have a right to be where they are.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(Emphasis supplied)

More importantly, pursuant to Florida statute 776.041(2), the person who uses deadly force cannot claim self-defense if he is the aggressor, unless,

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

(Emphasis supplied)

Zimmerman was not a law enforcement officer and we know from his 911 call that he ignored the 911 dispatcher’s admonition not to follow the “suspicious person” whom he called about. We also know that nothing Zimmerman said about the “suspicious person” was reasonably suspicious. That is, the facts and circumstances that he described (i.e., walking down the sidewalk while Black and wearing a hoodie) would not cause a reasonable person to suspect that Martin was committing a crime.

Nevertheless, Zimmerman initiated contact with Martin and apparently attempted to detain him without waiting for police to arrive. Since Zimmerman was not a police officer, he had no right to detain Martin and Martin was free to leave without identifying himself or answering any questions. Zimmerman would be considered an aggressor under Florida law, if he used or attempted to use any force to prevent Martin from walking away.

Also, under Florida statute 776.012, Martin could have stood his ground and would have been entitled to use force, but not deadly force, in self-defense to prevent Zimmerman from assaulting him. He would have been entitled to use deadly force in self-defense under 776.013(3), if Zimmerman were attempting to inflict serious bodily harm or kill him.

This case does not appear to be complicated to analyze. Zimmerman ignored the 911 dispatcher’s advice and, according to his own version of what happened, he attempted to detain Martin without a reasonable suspicion to believe Martin was committing a crime or lawful authority to detain him. Therefore, Zimmerman was the aggressor and Martin was entitled to stand his ground and use force to prevent Zimmerman from assaulting him, including using deadly force, if necessary.

We do not actually know if Martin used any force because the police videotape of Zimmerman arriving at the police station does not support Zimmerman’s claim that he sustained a broken nose and abrasions to the back of his head. But even if Zimmerman did sustain those injuries, (1) he was the aggressor, (2) Martin was entitled to use force in self-defense, (3) and Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense is barred by the statute.

At this point, racism and corruption appear to be the most likely explanation for the failure to arrest and prosecute George Zimmerman for intentionally killing Trayvon Martin.

Cross posted from my law blog.

The Death Penalty Is Unconstitutional And Insane

4:32 pm in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Period.

I have many reasons. Here are a few of them.

First and foremost, I oppose it because it is immoral. That it is imposed following a jury trial and appellate review, does not wash the defendant’s blood off the jury’s hands and, by extension, our hands because state sanctioned premeditated murder is still premeditated murder. No government ever should be in the business of killing its own people.

Second, death penalty cases typically cost more than three times the cost of incarcerating a defendant to life without possibility of parole.

Third, the death penalty has no deterrent effect. It does not reduce homicide rates. In fact, the opposite is true. Homicide rates are highest in the states that have a death penalty and lowest in the states that do not have a death penalty.

Fourth, our criminal justice system is so infected with racism, corrupt, and broken that it is impossible to know for certain if any given defendant committed the crime charged and, if he did, whether he deserves the death penalty, as opposed to life without parole.

Most people do not know that under our laws there is no murder, however heinous or depraved, that automatically results in a death sentence. When a jury convicts a defendant of a death eligible offense, the case proceeds to a sentencing phase in which the jury ultimately must decide whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating evidence (typically the murder and the defendant’s prior record, if any) so outweighs the mitigating evidence (evidence about the defendant and his role in committing the murder) that the defendant should forfeit his life. Assuring consistency that similarly situated defendants convicted of committing similar murders are consistently sentenced to life without possibility of parole instead of death, or vice versa, has proven to be impossible within states, let alone between states.

In Callins v. Collins, 510 U.S. 1141 (1994), Justice Harry Blackmun dissented from the United States Supreme Court’s denial of review in a death penalty case stating,

From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death. For more than 20 years I have endeavored — indeed, I have struggled — along with a majority of this Court, to develop procedural and substantive rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor. Rather than continue to coddle the Court’s delusion that the desired level of fairness has been achieved and the need for regulation eviscerated, I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. It is virtually self-evident to me now that no combination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever can save the death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies. The basic question — does the system accurately and consistently determine which defendants “deserve” to die? — cannot be answered in the affirmative. It is not simply that this Court has allowed vague aggravating circumstances to be employed, see, e. g., Arave v. Creech, 507 U. S. 463 (1993), relevant mitigating evidence to be disregarded, see, e. g., Johnson v. Texas, 509 U. S. 350 (1993), and vital judicial review to be blocked, see, e. g., Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722 (1991). The problem is that the inevitability of factual, legal, and moral error gives us a system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent, and reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution.

He concluded,

Perhaps one day this Court will develop procedural rules or verbal formulas that actually will provide consistency, fairness, and reliability in a capital sentencing scheme. I am not optimistic that such a day will come. I am more optimistic, though, that this Court eventually will conclude that the effort to eliminate arbitrariness while preserving fairness “in the infliction of [death] is so plainly doomed to failure that it—and the death penalty— must be abandoned altogether.” Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420, 442 (1980) (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment). I may not live to see that day, but I have faith that eventually it will arrive. The path the Court has chosen lessens us all. I dissent.

Justice Blackmun was a conservative Republican who believed strongly in the death penalty when he was appointed to the Supreme Court. As you can see, he finally reached the conclusion that it is impossible to fairly and equitably decide who lives and who dies. I reached the same conclusion, based on my 30 years of experience as a lawyer specializing in death penalty defense and forensics.

Justice Blackmun died in 1999.

Namaste: If Not Now, When? Chapter 5, Whatever Happened To The Golden Rule?

11:08 am in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

Chapter 5

Whatever Happened to the Golden Rule?

Edward Arlington Robinson wrote,

Miniver Cheevy
Child of scorn
Wished that he’d never been born
And he had reasons.

The Golden Rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is a corollary of Ma’at and a foundational principle of most religions. The Hebrew sage, Rabbi Hillel, who recognized that brotherly love is the fundamental principle of Jewish moral law. (Lev. xix. 18), explained the importance of the Golden Rule when he said,

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah, ; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.

Matthew, a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, described the importance of the Golden Rule in the following exchange between Jesus and a Pharisee lawyer questioning his authority.

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The prophet Mohamed expressed the Golden Rule as,

That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.

The Golden Rule has long recognized what scientists sequencing the human genome have recently confirmed. Humans are 99.5% genetically the same, no matter the color of our skin, the language we speak, our gender, sexual preference, age, race, ethnicity, or religious belief. Some scientists do not believe human genetics support the concept of racial differences. In other words, differences in skin color are no more significant to them than differences in eye or hair color and, therefore, an emphasis on categorizing people by the color of their skin is inherently flawed, reckless, and dangerous. In fact, there is considerably more genetic variation among brown skinned people than there is among white skinned people since Homo Sapiens sapiens originated in southern Africa in the border area between Namibia and South Africa approximately 200,000 years ago and emerged out of northeast Africa about 80,000 years ago. Natural selection favors people with brown skin in the hot sun-drenched tropics. White skin is the result of a genetic mutation that originated in humans after they emerged out of Africa and settled in northern Europe and north central Asia. Differences in skin color have no effect on intelligence. Differences in behavior are due to being raised in different cultures with different values and access to clean water, a nutritious and balanced diet, and education. For all of these reasons, these scientists believe racism is the inevitable result of a long and sorry history of classifying people by skin color. I agree.

Therefore, the “enemy” that our brothers and sisters encounter on a battlefield in a distant foreign land who wears a turban and speaks a foreign language is 99.5% exactly like them. They just look a little different and it does not take a great leap of faith or intuition to realize that they want to be treated by other people the same way our brothers and sisters in uniform want to be treated. They resent the presence of our brothers and sisters in uniform in their country killing their brothers and sisters just as we would resent their presence in our country killing our brothers and sisters. Because we are fundamentally the same, when we demonize the other, we demonize ourselves.Whenever we kill another person, no matter the reason, we kill part of ourselves.

Ubuntu is a Zulu word that describes the foundation of African societies. In essence, it means that a person is a person through other persons. Desmond Tutu said ubuntu is about community:

When we see another, we should recognize ourselves and the God in whom all people are made. My humanity is caught up in your humanity. I am a human being only because you are a human being. There is no such thing as a solitary human being . . . And for that reason, the highest value is accorded to harmony, communal harmony, and anger and revenge and bitterness are corrosive of this harmony. And in a sense, it is the best form of self-interest to forgive you, because if I do not, my anger against you, which goes toward dehumanizing you, dehumanizes me in the process. The minute you are diminished, whether I like it or not, I am diminished. And so if I can enhance your humanity, ipso facto, my humanity is enhanced. When another person is diminished, I am diminished.

Be sure to tune in tomorrow when I present Namaste: Chapter 6, Golden Rule Applications.

Cross-posted at my blog and Smirking Chimp

If Not Now, When? is my intellectual property. I retain full rights to my own work. You may copy it and share it with others, but only if you credit me as the author.
My real name is Frederick Leatherman. I was a criminal-defense lawyer for 30 years specializing in death-penalty defense and forensics. I also was a law professor.

Now I am a writer and I also haul scrap for a living in this insane land.




The New England Journal Of Medicine Rejects Incarceration And Proposes Treating Drug Addiction And Mental Illness As Medical Illnesses

12:16 pm in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

The respected New England Journal of Medicine presented a paper on its Perspective page last week titled, Medicine and the Epidemic of Incarceration in the United States. The paper reviewed the deplorable plight of drug addicted and mentally ill inmates in our nation’s prisons and concluded,

“Locking up millions of people for drug­related crimes has failed as a public­safety strategy and has harmed public health in the communities to which these men and women return. A new evidence­based approach is desperately needed. We believe that in addition to capitalizing on the public health opportunities that incarceration presents, the medical community and policymakers must advocate for alternatives to imprisonment, drug­policy reform, and increased public awareness of this crisis in order to reduce mass incarceration and its collateral consequence.”

To understand the nature of the problem, consider that at the end of 2008, the United States incarcerated 2.4 million people, or 1 out of every 100 people in federal and state penitentiaries. The official rate of incarceration reported by the U.S. Bureau of Statistics at the end of 2008 is 754 per 100,000. More than half of the people in prison were convicted of nonviolent offenses. Even though the United States has less than 5% of the world’s population, it incarcerates 23.4% of the world’s prison population. In mind-blowing contrast, consider the incarceration rate per 100,000 in the following countries: United Kingdom (153), Australia (129), China (119), Canada (116), France (96), Italy (92), and Germany (88). The racial composition of the prison population in the United States suggests that racism plays a significant role in determining who goes to prison because, although 12% of the population is African American, they make up 44% of the prison population. Does anyone really believe that there could be any evidence-based reasons that justify such a shocking disparity in the incarceration rate? I didn’t think so.

The authors of the paper noted that “by middle age, black men in the United States are more likely to have spent time in prison than to have graduated from college or joined the military, and they are far more likely than whites to be sent to prison for drug offenses despite being no more likely than whites to use drugs,” and “more than half of inmates have symptoms of a psychiatric disorder as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM­IV), and major depression and psychotic disorders are four to eight times as prevalent among inmates as in the general population.” They concluded that racism, the abject failure of the War on Drugs, and our nation’s “failure to treat addiction and mental illness as medical conditions” are responsible for most of the increase in our prison population. They proposed partnerships between correctional facilities and community health centers and academic medical centers to “capitalize on health gains made during incarceration and improve the continuity of care for former inmates during the critical post­release period,” noting that the “success of this effort will determine not only the health of released prisoners, but that of our society as a whole.”

I applaud the New England Journal of Medicine’s decision to publish a paper regarding the unjust and extremely serious plight of drug addicted and mentally ill prisoners in our nation’s cruel prisons. However, I believe the wars against drugs and the mentally ill are driven by desires (1) to get the mentally ill off our streets so that they will be out of sight and out of mind, (2) to maximize the institutionalization and disenfranchisement of African-Americans, minorities, and others likely to vote against conservative and Republican candidates for public office, and (3) to provide a free workforce of slave labor for corporations. Given those ignoble, cynical, and profit-driven intentions, treating mental illness and drug addiction will be sneeringly dismissed as a waste of money.

I believe there is little chance that public and private prisons will show any interest in forming partnerships with “community health centers and academic medical centers to capitalize on health gains made during incarceration and improve the continuity of care for former inmates during the critical post­release period.” First, there is no care inside the institutions, except that which is provided by
fellow inmates. Second, when inmates have served their sentences, the prisons will release them with a knowing smirk and the words, “See you soon, chump.”