Sister's kidney donation condition of Miss. parole

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,425
Reaction score
551
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.

[Related: Happy ending to one family's debt nightmare]

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 — 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.

[Related: Police in Berlin pepper spray snowballers]

An "indefinite suspension of sentence" can be reversed if the conditions are not followed, but those requirements are usually things like meeting with a parole officer.

The Scott sisters have received significant public support from advocacy groups, including the NAACP, which called for their release. Hundreds of people marched through downtown Jackson from the state capital to the governor's mansion in September, chanting in unison that the women should be freed.

Still, their release won't be immediate.

Mississippi Department of Corrections Commissioner Chris Epps said late Wednesday that he had not received the order. He also said the women want to live with relatives in Florida, which requires approval from officials in that state.

In general, that process takes 45 days.

Mississippi NAACP President Derrick Johnson said the Scott sisters' release will be "a great victory for the state of Mississippi for two individuals who received an excessive sentence" and he has no problem with the kidney donation requirement because Gladys Scott volunteered.

"I think it's encouraging that she's willing to share a kidney so her sister can have a better quality life," Johnson said.

National NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous said the suspension of the sentences represents the good that can come with the power of governors.

"It's again proof that when people get engaged, keep the faith, we can win," Jealous said.

Sister's kidney donation condition of Miss. parole - Yahoo! News
 
Two life sentences for robbing a man of $11!?

That's TOO excessive!
 
It was because they had a shotgun, considered a deadly weapon.
 
It was because they had a shotgun, considered a deadly weapon.

Definitely. I do wonder, though about making the release contigent on the kidney donation. That seems a bit out of bounds to me, and, not supported by any laws state or federal. :dunno:
 
Definitely. I do wonder, though about making the release contigent on the kidney donation. That seems a bit out of bounds to me, and, not supported by any laws state or federal. :dunno:

I have to agree on this one.
 
I saw this on the news the women were let out of jail as would had cost the tax payers $16,000 or something like that for the woman to get a kidney transplant.
 
I saw this on the news the women were let out of jail as would had cost the tax payers $16,000 or something like that for the woman to get a kidney transplant.

It costs more to keep the woman on dialysis. A lifetime on dialysis is way more expensive than a kidney transplant and a lifetime on anti-rejection meds, because with kidney failure, you have to dialyze at least three times a week for up to 4 hours each time, and you have to stick to a strict dialysis diet as well as dialysis-related medications and dialysis-related medical expenses, to keep you stable while on dialysis. A lifetime on dialysis would cost way much more than a kidney transplant and meds. I know this because I have a good friend who's been dialyzing for 20+ years since she was ten years old, and her medical bills are astounding.
 
It costs more to keep the woman on dialysis. A lifetime on dialysis is way more expensive than a kidney transplant and a lifetime on anti-rejection meds, because with kidney failure, you have to dialyze at least three times a week for up to 4 hours each time, and you have to stick to a strict dialysis diet as well as dialysis-related medications and dialysis-related medical expenses, to keep you stable while on dialysis. A lifetime on dialysis would cost way much more than a kidney transplant and meds. I know this because I have a good friend who's been dialyzing for 20+ years since she was ten years old, and her medical bills are astounding.

So NOT the point.
 
I saw this article in the newspaper. I'm going to bring it to my classroom next week and do a lesson with since I have to teach debate skills. This is a good one.

They led two men into an ambush, and they got shot in the heads for $11. The sisters' sentences were not harsh at all.
 
I saw this article in the newspaper. I'm going to bring it to my classroom next week and do a lesson with since I have to teach debate skills. This is a good one.

They led two men into an ambush, and they got shot in the heads for $11. The sisters' sentences were not harsh at all.

Agreed!

What do you think about the judge stipulating that the one sister give her sister the kidney? Very unorthodox! I would be interested to hear what your students think about this!
 
I saw this article in the newspaper. I'm going to bring it to my classroom next week and do a lesson with since I have to teach debate skills. This is a good one.

They led two men into an ambush, and they got shot in the heads for $11. The sisters' sentences were not harsh at all.

I did not see "shot" in the head, I saw struck, same as if they had used a baseball bat. If they had been shot, there would be no head left. I doubt a judge would release them for any reason after only 16 years. As it stands, 16 years for robbery seems fair.
 
It costs more to keep the woman on dialysis. A lifetime on dialysis is way more expensive than a kidney transplant and a lifetime on anti-rejection meds, because with kidney failure, you have to dialyze at least three times a week for up to 4 hours each time, and you have to stick to a strict dialysis diet as well as dialysis-related medications and dialysis-related medical expenses, to keep you stable while on dialysis. A lifetime on dialysis would cost way much more than a kidney transplant and meds. I know this because I have a good friend who's been dialyzing for 20+ years since she was ten years old, and her medical bills are astounding.

Well, considering these women are most likely finished with their sentences soon (2014 is the next parole date), why should the state of Mississippi pay for this surgery now? It would have been more cost efficient to do this many years ago. Which would be cheaper: 3 more years of the current situation, or a surgery on both of these women? If the costs were even remotely similar, I can see why taxpayers would not feel like "donating" to this.
 
Back
Top