Philhelm
12-30-2010, 10:47 AM
JACKSON, Miss. – For 16 years, sisters Jamie and Gladys Scott have shared a life behind bars for their part in an $11 armed robbery. To share freedom, they must also share a kidney.
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour suspended the sisters' life sentences on Wednesday, but 36-year-old Gladys Scott's release is contingent on her giving a kidney to Jamie, her 38-year-old sister, who requires daily dialysis.
The sisters were convicted in 1994 of leading two men into an ambush in central Mississippi the year before. Three teenagers hit each man in the head with a shotgun and took their wallets and making off with only $11, court records said.
Jamie and Gladys Scott were each convicted of two counts of armed robbery and sentenced to two life sentences.
"I think it's a victory," said the sisters' attorney, Chokwe Lumumba. "I talked to Gladys and she's elated about the news. I'm sure Jamie is, too."
Civil rights advocates have for years called for their release, saying the sentences were excessive. Those demands gained traction when Barbour asked the Mississippi Parole Board to take another look at the case.
The Scott sisters are eligible for parole in 2014, but Barbour said prison officials no longer think they are a threat to society and Jamie's medical condition is costing the state a lot of money.
Lumumba said he has no problem with the governor requiring Gladys to offer up her organ because "Gladys actually volunteered that as part of her petition."
Lumumba said it's not clear what caused the kidney failure, but it's likely a combination of different illnesses over the years.
Barbour spokesman Dan Turner told The Associated Press that Jamie Scott was released because she needs the transplant. He said Gladys Scott will be released if she agrees to donate her kidney because of the significant risk and recovery time.
"She wanted to do it," Turner said. "That wasn't something we introduced."
Barbour is a Republican in his second term who has been mentioned as a possible presidential contender in 2012. He said the parole board agreed with the indefinite suspension of their sentences, which is different from a pardon or commutation because it comes with conditions.
The article is continued:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101230/ap_on_re_us/us_sisters_pardon_kidney
Apparently there are a couple of stories here, one being whether they should have had a life sentence to begin with. The article mentions that they had hit two men over the head with shotguns and had only stolen $11. While it was made into a civil rights issue, there was no mention of the damage, if any, inflicted upon the victims of the crime (getting clubbed with a shotgun is no joke).
In any case, I was most interested in the release being conditional upon the one sister donating her kidney to the other. While it apparently was strictly voluntary, and had been brought up by the one sister, the situation seems a bit sinister in its implications. While the governor may have agreed to release them due to pressure from civil rights groups, it had also mentioned concerns of the monetary cost that the sister with the failed kidney imposed. There are certainly different factors at work here, but ultimately, I don't like the idea of people volunteering (or "volunteering") to have their organs harvested as a condition of release.
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour suspended the sisters' life sentences on Wednesday, but 36-year-old Gladys Scott's release is contingent on her giving a kidney to Jamie, her 38-year-old sister, who requires daily dialysis.
The sisters were convicted in 1994 of leading two men into an ambush in central Mississippi the year before. Three teenagers hit each man in the head with a shotgun and took their wallets and making off with only $11, court records said.
Jamie and Gladys Scott were each convicted of two counts of armed robbery and sentenced to two life sentences.
"I think it's a victory," said the sisters' attorney, Chokwe Lumumba. "I talked to Gladys and she's elated about the news. I'm sure Jamie is, too."
Civil rights advocates have for years called for their release, saying the sentences were excessive. Those demands gained traction when Barbour asked the Mississippi Parole Board to take another look at the case.
The Scott sisters are eligible for parole in 2014, but Barbour said prison officials no longer think they are a threat to society and Jamie's medical condition is costing the state a lot of money.
Lumumba said he has no problem with the governor requiring Gladys to offer up her organ because "Gladys actually volunteered that as part of her petition."
Lumumba said it's not clear what caused the kidney failure, but it's likely a combination of different illnesses over the years.
Barbour spokesman Dan Turner told The Associated Press that Jamie Scott was released because she needs the transplant. He said Gladys Scott will be released if she agrees to donate her kidney because of the significant risk and recovery time.
"She wanted to do it," Turner said. "That wasn't something we introduced."
Barbour is a Republican in his second term who has been mentioned as a possible presidential contender in 2012. He said the parole board agreed with the indefinite suspension of their sentences, which is different from a pardon or commutation because it comes with conditions.
The article is continued:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101230/ap_on_re_us/us_sisters_pardon_kidney
Apparently there are a couple of stories here, one being whether they should have had a life sentence to begin with. The article mentions that they had hit two men over the head with shotguns and had only stolen $11. While it was made into a civil rights issue, there was no mention of the damage, if any, inflicted upon the victims of the crime (getting clubbed with a shotgun is no joke).
In any case, I was most interested in the release being conditional upon the one sister donating her kidney to the other. While it apparently was strictly voluntary, and had been brought up by the one sister, the situation seems a bit sinister in its implications. While the governor may have agreed to release them due to pressure from civil rights groups, it had also mentioned concerns of the monetary cost that the sister with the failed kidney imposed. There are certainly different factors at work here, but ultimately, I don't like the idea of people volunteering (or "volunteering") to have their organs harvested as a condition of release.