The Post-Human Condition

It was a tumultuous morning around here. All three kids upset for some reason or another, people running late on their way to work or school, the general chaotic domino effect that ensues when everyone wakes up a little cranky. So that’s why I was so relieved to read this letter from Tim DeChristopher (thank you Grist.org for publishing) for an inspirational breath of fresh air. Tim, as I’ve written before, was imprisoned just last month for his role in bidding up prices on federal oil and gas lease auctions in Utah. In this his first statement from prison, he reflects on the role of civil disobedience in today’s America, why he avoided a very attractive plea bargain, and why those practicing civil disobedience get an extra serving of punishment at the sentencing.

I found this analysis on the disproportionate use of plea bargains in criminal cases to be very illuminating. In effect, through the use of the plea bargain, very few cases ever get to a jury trial. And for those taking a stand on social and environmental issues through civil disobedience, this is a big deal. It is the reason, of course, that someone like Tim chose to take 2 years in prison rather than the few dozen days in jail offered in the plea bargain:

The revolutionaries who founded this country were deeply distrustful of a concentration of power, so among other precautions, they established citizen juries as the most important part of our legal system and insisted upon constitutional right to a jury trial. To avoid this inconvenience, those seeking concentrated power free from revolutionaries have minimized the role of citizens in our legal system. They have accomplished this by restricting what juries can hear, what they can decide upon, and most importantly, by avoiding jury trials all together. It is now accepted as a basic fact of our criminal justice system that a defendant who exercises his or her right to a jury trial will be punished at sentencing for doing so. Transferring power from citizens to government happens when the role of citizens gets eliminated in the process.

In short, Tim’s message would have never seen the light of day if he had just quietly accepted the very favorable terms of the plea bargain he had been offered, and the government would have effectively won.

The latter paragraphs of the letter are truly inspired, and cement Tim in my mind as one of the great practitioners of civil disobedience in our time. He is not just a mad 30-something out to fight “the man”. He is a philosopher and morally guided populist leader. This next passage truly captured for me the need for climate activists and progressives to not only incorporate non-violent civil disobedience into their quiver of tools, but to make it the primary “weapon”. In an age where mega-corporations are granted personhood, you have to be truly extraordinary to be heard:

Over the last couple hundred years of quelling dissent, the government has learned a few things about maintaining power. Sometimes it seems that the government has learned more from our social movement history than we as activists have. Their willingness to let a direct action off with a slap on the wrist while handing out two years for political statements comes from their understanding of the power of an individual. They know that one person, or even a small group, cannot have enough of a direct impact on our corporate giants to really alter things in our economy. They know that a single person can’t have a meaningful direct impact on our political system. But our modern government is dismantling the First Amendment because they understand the very same thing our founding fathers did when they wrote it: What one person can do is to plant the seeds of love and outrage in the hearts of a movement. And if those hearts are fertile ground, those seeds of love and outrage will grow into a revolution.

Thank you and keep the letters coming, Tim.