Sister’s Kidney Donation Condition of Mississippi Parole
The Bay State Banner
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 last week, 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 - 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 said 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.
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 last 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 pardon represents the good that can come with the power of governors to commute sentences.
The organization worked to try to persuade Barbour who ended up agreeing that the sisters “did not deserve to spend one more day in prison,” Jealous said.
“It’s again proof that when people get engaged, keep the faith, we can win,” Jealous said.
Barbour has used his power sparingly to free prisoners over the years, but some of his decisions have created a backlash.
Barbour outraged the family and friends of Jean Elizabeth Gillies, a University of Mississippi student who was raped, sodomized and strangled in 1986, when he granted a suspended sentence for her killer, Douglas Hodgkin.
He also angered others by granting a similar release to Michael Graham, who was serving a life sentence for murdering his ex-wife in 1989.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
With all money aside, what these women did was wrong, and no doubt needs to be punished. However, since they are deemed respectable members of society now, I may agree with the sentencing. I don't condone armed violence, but I do condone second chances. Plus, we have a woman who needs a kidney transplant, who is taking up money that could be used for different causes. It's really a win win situation here. The only thing that I disagree with slightly is the jury's part, making the deal based on human organs, which is a little shady, but other than that, the deal seems fine and works for everyone.
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a good thing that these women are being released from prison. It really was an excessive sentence, considering that all they did was knock two men out with the shotguns and take their wallets, and top of that they only made off with $11. Yes, they were wrong for robbing him, and yes, they were right to be punished. But a life sentence each? Come on, that makes no sense. The "indefinite suspension of sentence" is a good idea, but should be used with discretion. The last 2 paragraphs about the release of those murderers made no sense at all.
Neethu George
ReplyDelete3rd period
I think that it's really thoughtful of the sister to donate her kidney. However, the two sisters should be out of jail and shouldn't be kept there forever. The sisters seem trustworthy after 16 years. They should at least only be kept on parole.
I am glad that this is the article for this week because I have already read it a month ago. I delved a little further into the subject and here is what I have to offer. As of today, January 10, the sisters have not yet been tested to see if their kidneys are even compatible. That is to say that Gladys might not be able to give Jamie the transplant and theoretically she would go back to prison! However, she would be eligable for parole in 2014.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Chenevert
ReplyDelete2nd Period
I think that it is good that these girls are being released, because they are no longer a threat to society. They have done their time and I think it shows how things have changed over their time. They are more responsible. It good to see to siblings working together for a good cause. This article brings enlightenment to my heart. Now a days siblings are no longer in contact and they don't get a long. But these two women exemplify the true uniting of sisterhood.
Prerna Kamnani
ReplyDelete4th Period
Although these two sisters did commit crime, I feel the punishment was excessive. No doubt, they were wrong for stealing. I feel they have served enough to understand that. They stole only eleven dollars. For that small amount, they were kept in jail for the longest time. After serving for so long, I feel the sisters have to come to terms with the mistake they committed. I think it is thoughtful of the sister to donate her kidney. It was nice thinking that she was willing to donate her kidney. I hope everything for them works out.
A life sentence?
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty bad. But people now-a-days are cruel in so many ways, for example, giving two women a life sentence in jail for just stealing 11 dollars and knocking two men out. Of course, that was pretty wrong for them to do. And I think they should trust the women for serving with them for 16 years, and plus one of them has the heart to donate a kidney! Now how thoughtful would that be? I think pretty innocent.
That is ashame that she killed a man for 11 dollars not to be mean but I see why she in jail. But everybody do need a second chance.
ReplyDeleteRoy Glover 3rd
Ajeet Baath
ReplyDelete6th Pd
I also believe the sentencing was excessive on account of the fact that they did not kill or mortally injure someone. They did not pull off a bank heist because they only made $11. Life sentences are usually associated with murder and rape suspects. The court should have understood that these charges are minor and the case should have never had to wait around for 16 years to be investigated. What kind of sick, twisted world have we come to where one who steals $11 dollars is imprisoned for life and murderers get out without a slap on the wrist?
Jessica Dove
ReplyDelete5th Period
I definitely think it was wrong for the women to rob and hit the two men in the head, but they only stole 11 dollars. I don't think they should have had life sentences. They have been in jail for a long time now and no one seems to think that they are a threat to our society. If one of them is willing to give up her kidney, she must be a good person.
I think that releasing them would be good for them. They would be even more grateful for what they have and what they can do with their lives. They have been through enough punishment for stealing 11 dollars in my opinion.
Not to be insensitive, but I don't see what is so significant about them. They did a detrimental act in society and have to live with their consequences, and for them to have an article because "this uniting sisterhood" is experiencing a kidney transplant is a waste of a news article to be completely honest. There are far more serious, and interesting issues around the world.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this, I can conclude that Gladys has a heart in which she cares enough her sister to give her a kidney transplant. Although, I am still confused by the fact that they went to jail for life for stealing $11? Maybe someone can clear that up for me. But as they say the women aren't a threat to society anymore so I'm glad to see they'll be freed soon. There are consequences for all of your actions.
ReplyDeleteKiah R.
3 period
I do believe in second chances. But you don't always know if the people that you give the chances to, are going to take the chance for granted and do it again. What the sisters did was wrong, yes. But a life sentence? Really? That's completely irrational, confusing, and it just plain doesn't make sense. They stole 11 dollars! Plus, they didn't murder anyone! So I say that they should be let out. Plus the kidney idea is great! It will save money for the state AND help save a life. The last paragraphs about the prisoners getting out when they commited rape and murder, that doesn't really matter in this situation. Because they women stole 11 dollars and the men murdered and raped. So the mens situation is way worse that the womens. But I still don't see why Barbour would do that?
ReplyDeleteA person on dialysis is a very sick person and not healthy enough to be in prison. I support the fact that they got released. I’m glad that the sister wasn’t against the fact of donating a kidney because I don’t know how I would feel about court making people donate organs. Also, at the bottom of the article it talks about how the senator released other prisoners but those prisoners committed far more insidious crimes.
ReplyDeleteKyne Onyenze
ReplyDelete3rd Period
That isn’t fair for those girls. Why should they be sentenced to life jail just for making off with $11? To me, like the article stated, is an “excessive sentence” because people nowadays go to prison for life sentences for murdering people or committing more worse crimes than stealing $11. I mean is that really necessary? Yes they did need to be punished, maybe a couple years or so but not life. And then the second matter why should she have to give up a kidney just for the board or jury to think about her “indefinite suspension of sentence” and possibly putting the sisters on parole in 2014? That’s a little late and if she’s been using up a lot of government money just to maintain and keep her alive why didn’t they think about the kidney transplant a while ago? Really America? Is this what it has come to? Being sentenced to prison for life because of stealing $11? And its no better for the girls side either.
Honestly, people get sentenced to prison for a lot of unnecessary reasons. I'm not saying beating two men and stealing their cash is right but another punishment could have been better. The United States build more prisons then school for goodness sake. They should have been sent to a county jail for two-to-three years then be on parole for another three years. I'm glad the sister's are out. I just wish situations could be handled better than always a life sentence, so we can use money on something important. Instead of building a new prison all the time because of stupid decisions people make and get in trouble for.
ReplyDelete3rd period
ReplyDeleteRoy it didn't say that they killed them it just said that they stole their money. This is what made people think that they were given too long of a sentence in prison. I think that it was the right thing to do to release them so she could give her sister a kidney.
I think this is really cool. A woman who has been in jail for many years is willing to sacrifice one of her own kidneys to save the life of her sister. This shows many things. One of the things it shows is that love will always prevail, even if you’re in a prison. Also it shows that even some of the harshest criminals can still have a heart. On top of that it was just a bonus that the two will be able to get out of jail.
ReplyDeleteFifth Period
ReplyDeleteIn Jamie's position, I would rather stay in prison! It's not that I love the food there or the overall atmosphere, but it's the free medical coverage that Jamie's going to get. These two sister have two life sentences. Even if they are to be released, they will not have much of a life yet. Yes they may earn some money, but not nearly enough to keep up with Jamie's medical issues. To me, I just think that Jamie should just stay in prison and be thankful for the treatment she is getting. I may be wrong, but in the long run I believe that this may be the only solution to the problem.
Mayur Patel
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
It is a good thing that the girls got out of jail because even though they did commit some sort of violence, they shouldn't be put to a life sentence. It was also very thoughtful that the lady donated her kidney. That proves that she felt bad for the guy she hurt just for 11 dollars.
Saimol Edaparampil
ReplyDelete3rd period
I think that getting a life sentence for stealing $11 dollars is really cruel because it is not like they killed someone even though what they did is wrong and they should be punished for it. But life sentence is just a really long time for stealing $11. Also I don't think that Barbour should have helped release those murderers because that is a serious crime and they should be given a life sentence for such a horrible crime. And I'm sure that once they have killed someone, they would not be scared to kill another human being.
Nick Mathai
ReplyDelete6th period
I think the girls deserved to go to prison but not for life considering the fact that they only stole $11.
Now I am sure they have realized what could happen by stealing so I'm sure they won't ever do it again since it almost ruined their lives.
Whoa whoa whoa WAIT! These people are in jail for life for WHAT? Knocking two guys out and stealing their wallets?! That should only be a few years. Not to mention the wacko parole conditions.Giving your kidney should not be part of the parole.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Anderson
3rd period
Mishi Jain
ReplyDelete2nd period
Although people could make the argument that it was only $11 so the sentencing was way too long. I disagree and agree with his. I disagree with the part that it was only $11. The fact that these women stole is a crime therefore they should be punished. No matter what amount it may be the criminals should be punished because what they did was wrong. I agree with the part that the sentencing was too long. Not because of the fact that it was only $11, but because of the fact that one woman had problems with her kidney and 2 years is just way to long for a crime like this.
Jenny Chang
ReplyDeletePeriod 5
They should not receive life sentences for armed robbery. No one was fatally harmed in the process. The victims were merely knocked out. I think 16 years behind the bars are enough for their punishment. If they want second chances, we should grant their wishes, regardless the donation of kidney.
Sarah Raines
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
I do agree that a life sentence for what the Scott sisters did was pretty outrageous. I do think that it was expectable to grant them a pardon. However, I do not agree with pardoning someone who has done such things as Douglas Hodgkin. Crimes like these make me sick and to free someone like that just grosses me out. But I am one to forgive and I think there are always chances. So I can’t say that I would completely disagree, but I would not free someone who has done something like that with a healthy conscious that is certain.
Kaylah Moore
ReplyDelete2ND
Ok, the life sentence was kind of way over the top. I agree with everyone else in how it was wrong, but their sentence was so unnecessary. And how do you release murders? It’s not right that they did it, and it’s not right that they’re being let off easy for doing such cruel acts.
I think that its a good thing that they are being freed. I feel like they already got the punishment that they needed. Two life sentences for stealing eleven dollars is too much in my opinion. I'm sure that they learned their lesson and I think they should be freed.
ReplyDeleteI think a life sentence is a little excessive, considering all they did is knock two guys out and steal 11 bucks.And now one of the sisters is even willing to donate a kidney. I think they've learned their lesson. They should let them go. They deserved punsihment for their crime, but a life sentence? Now thats cruel and unusual punishment.
ReplyDeleteWow! Life sentences for eleven dollars? What is the world coming to? I believe what the women did was wrong after all they killed people, but they don’t deserve life for that. On the matter of their innocence, I believe they are changed people, who deserve to be out there contributing to society like the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteJames Joseph
2nd period
Stealing is wrong and unethical, no matter how much money one gets out of it. Any crime deserves punishment, and the punishment these two sisters received was extreme. A life sentence for stealing is a little too harsh. Even though these women assaulted two men and knocked them out, the two men weren’t killed. I would understand a life sentence for a murder. Every person makes mistakes and every person deserves a second chance to right their wrongs.
ReplyDeleteDanielle Sherman
ReplyDelete2nd Period
I think their life sentences were excessive. 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. If it is costing the state money it is better for them to release them both. Their sentencing was already unnecessary. It was $11 and, plus, at that time they were just kids "having fun".
Cortney Corley
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
I agree with many people above me that the life sentence was too much, but hitting men with a shotgun is a serious crime. The time the sisters spent in jail was well deserved. I don't think anyone should be punished with a life sentence unless they took someone else's life. But by giving up a kidney, that sister shows she has learned her lesson and has become a caring, civil individual. That should count for something. I think it's the right thing to do to release them early and let them live while they can, because one sister is sick, and having only 1 kidney might cause problems.
Jay Shah 6th Period
ReplyDeleteI think almost everyone agrees a life sentence is a little too much. If I was the governor I would have released these woman much quicker than they were released. I however would not have released the people that were mentioned in the end. Those people deserve to be in jail as what they did was wrong. I am not saying what these women did was right, but I think they have suffered enough for their actions. Also it is quite kind of the sister to donate her kidney.
Riquerra Broadnax (Period 2)
ReplyDeleteI think its good they're being let free. I mean they were sentenced to life imprisonment for steeling eleven dollars plus the other sisters kidney is failing that’s punishment in itself. I also know that what they did was wrong but life imprisonment come on that’s a little too harsh.
Charlene Sigua
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
I think it's good that these women are being released. They were sentenced to life imprison meant for stealing eleven dollars, that's pretty harsh considering that there was no murder committed. I'm pretty sure they've learned their lesson and deserve a second chance.
Francescha Rundle
ReplyDeletePeriod 5
Well, I believe that hitting two men with a gun and stealing eleven dollars does not deserve a life sentence. Having one sister being sick and the other volunteering to give her a kidney is a big change for me to let them out of prison. Since they both still care about things, they deserve to be released. They are not sociopathic criminals. I think that the two have learned their lesson and should be released for the sake of Jamie.
Esteban Palacios
ReplyDelete6th period
I think it would be better if they let them free. They both have done some time in jail for eleven dollars, and now one of the sisters needs a kidney and the other sister volunteered to help her. They are going to need some time to heal up and it would be better for them to recover in a place where they will have people that would look after them. About the other people that are mentioned at the end, I would not have released them. They did worse things than these two sisters
I agree that punishing these sisters with a life sentence is pretty harsh, but that does not compare with the people that committed murder. I think stealing eleven dollars is better than taking someones life. But I don't think that just because one sister is on dialysis they should be let out on that reason. They should at least have gotten 1 or 2 years in prison with parole because it is still a crime. I think the sentence was excessive and unfair.
ReplyDelete2nd Period
ReplyDeleteI think that it's good to know that the sister Gladys is offering her kidney to her sister. With that kept in mind, I think it'd be fair to release them from prison. I think that, with that kind of heart they should be seen at a different perspective than they were seen 16 years back. If not released completely, they should at least be on parole.
Period 2
ReplyDeleteWhat is really confusing is how did they get a life sentence in jail for only stealing $11? I mean murdering someone else is most likely death or life sentence in prison. But the sisters should be released at least for a couple of days being sick and with the transplant and try to see the outside world and how it changed. But with this life sentence they cannot see what is outside the world, life is not fair.
Amber Tunstall
ReplyDelete4th
I can understand why they've been punished, but I think the sentence was a bit too severe. Sure Mr.Barbour made some bad mistakes and released a few of the "wrong" people, but it's good that he's trying to help these women who have been unfairly condemned. And I also think its fair that they're having one sister give a kidney to the other. Not only does it keep her alive, but it also reduces their costs for caring for her. The whole thing seems like a win-win situation to me.
Jade Martin
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
I think it would be ok to release them from prison. I think since they have been in prison for such a long time, maybe it has changed their views on some things. Now they know what prison is like and they wouldn't like to spend their whole lives there. Donating an organ to her sister really shows what kind of compassion she has toward her sister. I think she deserves to be let out of prison.
My thoughts on this are that the whole thing is stupid. Why should somebody go to a life sentence n jail for stealing $11? It may have been an armed robbery, but it was only $11. I can understand a couple years in prison, but not a life sentence. I'm a little glad that they are getting out but its not right that they should go out with conditions. They also shouldn't make Gladys donate her organ just to be free. Mississippi has kept them in jail long enough. They should be free under no conditions.
ReplyDeleteA crime is A CRIME. It doesn't matter how much you stole, what matters is that you stole it, and with a weapon too, and they assaulted two men these sisters should have served the full term. If I were one of these men, I would want them to serve the full term. This is sending the wrong message to criminals. So maybe the sentence was a little excessive, but they were probably charged with assault too. So assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery; come on! Those sentences pile up. It wasn't just for the 11 dollars. To me this looks like they're willing to do anything to get out of jail.
ReplyDeleteCarolyne Lu
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
I think their punishment was definitely unfair. As many of the people above said, it is extremely wrong that they attacked these two men and took off with his wallet. Many are saying it was just $11 and I agree. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be punished for assaulting the men but a life sentence for $11 and assault is way too harsh. I do also think it's kind of weird how the judge is letting Gladys off the hook if she donates her kidney to her sister... but I guess if she was willing to do that for her sister, that shows she really is not a bad person and still has a heart.
I also think that these sisters should be released. They seem like they are no longer a threat to society so they should be free. Some people might think that the healthy sister is only offering her kidney to her sister in order to be released, but I do not agree. It seems like the sister genuinely wants to help. I feel like these women have spent enough time in jail and that they deserve to be set free.
ReplyDeleteThe Scotts' sentence was way over excessive. For sure, they did wrong, but what happen to the victim, nothing. He is eleven dollars short and money is a lot these days, but truly a life sentence is unfair.
ReplyDeleteIt is also a great deal of money the government and us tax payers are spending Jamie. When I first read the article I was like this lady is getting daily dialysis treatment. I then who is paying for this? Probably us, oh (expletive) no! Then one should think about their long sentence and maybe if she had a job, her own insurance would pay, not us. Plus, her crime was NOT serious. With her condition, she's bound die in jail, so it is fair that she leaves and hopefully her transplant is successful!
I think that it is great that these two girls are getting out. I do not think that their original sentence was very over the top in the first place though. It is not like they expected to only get $11. They were probably expecting a lot more. It was the actual act of hitting two guys across the head with a shotgun that was the reason for getting the sentence. As for getting out to have a kidney transplant, I do not see a problem with it. Being on dialysis means you must be really sick. That senator seems kind of shady though. And just so you know, a life sentences is not usually for life, most get off on parole, that is why some people get multiple life sentences so that if they get off for one, they still have to serve the other.
ReplyDelete5th period
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the punishment that people get don't match up to the crime they committed. Injuring two guys is pretty serious but, the punishment they got wasn't needed. To me the $11 dollars isn't that big of a deal and they should at least have a minor punishment. Plus one sister was willing to give up her kidney for the other. That tells us something.
I think they should let them be free now. They were stupid teenagers and messed up really bad. Im not saying it's ok but she needs a kidney and it was so long ago they are grown women now. I believe in second chances even third and fourth chances, and they should be free. If shes going to suffer, with the whole needing a kidney, it shouldn't be in jail.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this article, I was quite amazed at how two robbers who stole only $11 are still in jail while two murderers were set free. I understand Governor Barbour does not want to make another 'mistake' again, but how bad can these people be to deserve a life sentence. If one person is on the brink of death, they should given a chance to survive by being released to receive care and perform a surgery to transplant a kidney. The governor cannot waste precious time thinking whether he should release them or not for a life is at stake. I personally would want them released, despite what they have done before, in order for Jamie Scott to live another day.
ReplyDelete-Jerry George
3rd Period
Alvin Mei
ReplyDelete2nd Period
It is wonderful to read about how these two sisters were freed from jail, but an armed robbery cannot match up to a life sentence in jail, I just do not see it. The fact that they only made $11 dollars is astonishing, and going to court to be sentenced life in jail is even more astonishing. Their relationship will never fade away, because they have always looked out for each other during their sentence, and when Jamie needed a kidney Gladys was happy to give it to her. They were just teenagers, and should not have been in jail for that long.
People should have been protesting about this restlessly 16 years ago. Seriously, earphones cost more then that. What kind of justice is this? So many people get less time for steal $500 worth of things. Now they can only become free cause a kidney transplant? This is really messed up and I believe the American people should stand up to this and investigate this case nationally!
ReplyDelete-Justin Johnson
6 period
Victoria Hackney
ReplyDelete2nd Period
As I read through the comments to see what other people are thinking I kept seeing how most people where ‘mad’ that they were in a life sentence for stealing 11 dollars, but that’s not the only reason they got the punishment they did. The sisters had multiple crimes they committed; assault with a deadly weapon (to multiple men) and theft. Although they only ended up getting away with 11 dollars, that was not the sisters intent. Do I think the life sentence was a little much maybe? Yes, I do, but at the same time I don’t think the sisters should just be released because one of the sisters is having kidney failure and the other is willing to donate a kidney. Yes, something needs to be done about this and the sister does deserve help but all charges shouldn’t just be dropped because of a health issue.
Samantha Twardowski
ReplyDelete3rd Period
I honestly am not that sympathetic toward the two sisters. I believe that they deserved to go to jail but I think that they shouldn't have to stay in jail for forever. It is very sweet for the sister to be willing to donate a kidney and I have hope for the two sisters.
I agree with the majority of the people; a life-time sentence for a $11 robbery seems like too much. Even a long sentence, like 20 years, is more reasonable than that. At least then they would have hope of getting out and restarting their lives, instead of having no reason to live.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Thai
Period 5
I believe they served their time locked up and should be let out for some fresh air. I Believe that her sister is offering her kidney because she loves her and not because her want to get out as some would think. If my brother was in jail with me I would do the same. I think they should let the $11 go. I understand why they were locked up and they shouldn't have done that, but it's just $11. I hope everything go well and may they count their blessing and move forward in life.
ReplyDelete-Justin Johnson
6 period
Malcolm Berry
ReplyDelete5th period
Again the state of Mississippi Justice system have convicted its African -American citizens to unjust sentences. Over the years the state of Mississippi ludicrous sentences to its citizens of color and have been "covering up" crimes done by its deemed desirable members of society. I do understand though why the women are in jail but cannot comprehend this heavy sentence. They did commit murder, they did not escape with an extremely large amount of money, the did not even hurt the victims most likely only gave them a scare. I am glad that women are released they have been unjustly sentenced, and I feel that after serving time they have done they are now fit to become again productive members of our society.
Jae Phan
ReplyDelete4th Period
I was confused as to the reason why the sisters were released. Possibly because the sister with Dialysis was too costly for the state. It is interesting how these two women evade life sentences by an illness. I'm sure the state had other reasons for releasing the sisters because stories like this one are common and yet they don't get out of prison.
I think the girls should be released. They should have to serve parole and what not, but I think they should get somewhat of a clean slate. The state or someone should help them find jobs is all I mean by "Clean Slate", not that their record is cleared. It is hard for convicted criminals to do anything, and for them to be convicted when they were 13 makes it harder because they have seemed to change. All an employer will see is "felony" on their records and nothing else. I am also not saying they should be given fantastic dream jobs, but at least something so that they can make money and survive in this world off of.
ReplyDeleteAfter 16 years of being in jail, I think the sisters should be let out. They did their time, and I think they had enough time to think about what they did wrong. She does need a kidney, so now she'll be able to get one, and live her life knowing she did something wrong, but not do it agian.
ReplyDeleteEmily Panozzo
ReplyDelete4th Period
When it comes to this situation, I have a definite response and I feel very strongly about what I have to say. A relative of mine was kidnapped by a man that wanted his money. He held a gun up to this family member and told him that if he gave all the money he could, that he would not be hurt. This relative complied and after doing all he was told, the man shot him four times! My relative to a bullet to his head but miraculously survived with the bullet still in his jaw! The criminal however was never caught and has done who knows how many more crimes. These women did just that. They used a gun to get what they wanted. They threatened a living human being with a gun and stole his money. Who cares if it was only 11 dollars! They weren’t trying to steal just 11 dollars, they were trying to get money and take a man’s life just so that they wouldn’t have to work for it and who knows if they won't try that again. If these women get released than I will be outraged at our society. I would rather save numerous lives than be a “forgiving person” to criminals.
4th period
ReplyDeleteI do think that the women should be released because the punishment may have been appropriate for back then, but now it is not. I also agree with Cedric; that the money that is being spent on her medical expenses could be going to bigger issues. I also think that if a man who committed murder gets a second chance, then they should too.
Aileen Nguyen
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
Giving each of the sisters a life sentence for their crime is quite excessive, especially since the crime they committed wasn't even that bad. Yes, they hit two men in the head with shotguns. Yes, they stole $11 from them, but why send them to jail for so long? There are many other people around the country who deserve some time behind bars for what they have done, yet they don't get thrown in jail for life or even at all, so it's nice that the Scott sisters will be freed.
Gabriel Camera
ReplyDelete6th period
I think that is very nice of one of the sisters to donate her kidney to her sister. Because I would do that too, but only to my siblings. And I also think that the sisters should stay in jail for the rest of their life. Because they killed innocent people who don't deserve to die. Killing people is not the solution to get money.
Although the life sentence may have been a little on the extreme side, they should have not gotten such an extreme punishment. The crime in my opinion sounded like it was also a case of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon which might on in the juries mind added a little time to it. But, still it was a life sentence which they should have never gotten at most maybe 25 years. By now they most likely learned their lesson which means they should be released. Also, I think that Jamie should be released first because she gave a needed organ to her sister. This shows that she is a caring person. Finally, they should have been up for parole a couple of years ago because the jury was excessive on their ruling.
ReplyDeleteIt amazes me to think that people spend their time writing and reading articles about something that is so unimportant. There are so many things going on in the world right now, and people are focused on sisters who are getting out of jail. They knew what they did was wrong when they were doing it and they had to suffer to consequences. Their lives are the way they are because of their choices and actions.
ReplyDeleteA live sentence is way to harsh for having just stolen 11 dollars. They have been to jail and the purpose of jail is for them to re think their lives and come out better people. I think that if they where released now they would not be an endangerment to society. I believe that they deserve a second chance and should be released.
ReplyDeleteTravis Crissman
ReplyDelete2nd period
I think it is really wrong that these women committed this crime, and believe that they needed to be punished and go to jail. After all these years in prison, these sisters have been punished enough. A life sentence was a bit extreme for this particular crime. I understand why the sick sister is going to be released. Her illness and medical needs are too great for her to remain in prison. I believe that the healthy sister should also be released, but glad that it was not on the condition that she must donate a kidney. They should definitely have to remain accountable with a parole officer.
5th Period
ReplyDeleteI think our sentencing of prisoners in this country needs some serious evaluation. We need to review what we sentence people for and why. Was a lifesentence necessary in this case? The money that these women have cost the state while they were in prison along with the medical care is probably more than anyone imagined. I think that the sisters have done their time and should be allowed to be members of the society again. They were very young and hopefully learned their lesson. This is an example of how our judicial system needs to be reevaluated.
Betty Ponce
ReplyDelete3rd period.
I agree with Ashley, the punishment the sisters got was definitely not matched up to the crime they commited,well in this case-matched down. I believe that they should be free whether or not one of them needs the kidney treatment because I'm pretty sure they've both learned their lesson after 16 years of being locked up. I don't think they will go commit another crime after being released, what they did and the punishment they got probably taught them a lesson and made them regret their actions. Also I believe that other families should not be angered by what Barbour does. He is only doing his job by helping his clients get released, afterall I think that's what they hired him to do. But then again if I was in Gillis family's situatioin I would react just as they did.
Samantha Martin
ReplyDelete4th period
I think that though these two sisters committed a crime, the sentence was ridiculous and they deserve to be released from prison. I mean, a life sentence? There are people in this world who have committed far worse crimes and get out of jail within a few years. I think they should be released from prison so Jamie can get a kidney from her sister.
After sixteen years, I think the sisters learned their lesson from what they did. That was sixteen years ago and I certain they been through enough in the prison to begin with. I'm just saying, a sister willing to gave up her kidney tells me that they are kind in heart. I wouldn't feel threaten walking by them if I ever did. Besides, I don't think they should have gotten the punishment they got just by injuring two men.
ReplyDeleteJustin Johnson
6 period
Bailey Banks
ReplyDelete6th Period
The life sentence is definitely too long for these sisters, what they did was obviously wrong, but it's almost certain that they learned their lesson. If they killed someone it would have been a different story, but it is great that Gladys is donating her kidney to her sister. Hopefully these sisters reached their senses whenever one got sick and began to see how short life is so one should live it to the fullest. Then again this isn't that important, if we think about it wouldn't almost every sister do this for her sibling?
Nick Grieger
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
Unlike most above me, I do not believe that their sentence was too dramatic. They robbed two men and knocked them unconscious. It is not how much that the women stole, but their intention to steal. Just imagine you were one of those women, would you want to get just $11 or say around a $100 and a few credit cards. These women tried to steal a lot but only got away with a few bucks. As for sharing the kidney, I think that the sister really needs it, but releasing them that might be a little much.
I think that the sentence was very harsh. They both should be free. I have been reading into this case for a long time. The girls only got away with $11. To be in jail for 16 years is horrible for $11. They should be released so Jaime can receive a kidney. The state of Mississippi is racist in many areas. I have family members there and they see and go through many things that isn't fair to them. If you can recall, many things like this occured in Mississippi before. Remember the Jena 6? It occured in Mississippi. I just hope that people can all be treated fairly one day.
ReplyDelete6th period.
ReplyDeleteAfter serving in prison for sixteen years, I think it's good that Gladys and Jamie are [hopefully] are able to go on parole. I mean a life sentence? That's harsh considering that they only stole $11. I know that a crime is a crime but honestly, life sentence? I think it's sweet of Gladys to offer to donate her kidney to her sister. Even if they may not be a match.
I think that the sisters have learned their lesson. They only got away with 11 dollars which isn't enough to go to prison for 16 years. The girls didn't kill anyone therefore the punishment given to them is harsh. They both should be free, it doesn't matter that one needs a new kidney. They probably learned their lesson by now. The judge obviously doesn't have a heart if he wont even release them for Jaime to have a new kidney.
ReplyDeleteI do not really understand why they received life sentences for assaulting the two men. It seems slightly harsh, so I can empathize with the decision to release them, particularly since one of them has a life-threatening condition. I just hope they have learned from their mistakes and their time in jail.
ReplyDeleteRaphael Laran
ReplyDelete5th Period
Even though the Scott sisters committed armed robbery that should have gave them life sentences, but the thought that one of the sisters would give up a kidney for the other is very kind. We are all human and we wouldn't always stay with the law, but the thought of something. Two people who would commit a crime but be kind enough to sacrifice to save the other, it's precious for do something like that. I don't know why Barbour would suspend Hodgkin's sentence if he raped, sodomized, and strangled a girl. I think Hodgkin should have been sentenced for life if he did that.
Grace Bonojo
ReplyDelete4th Period
I personally think that the sister's sentence was downright wrong and unjust. Their sentence really was excessive considering all they did was hit the guys over the head and took off with $11. Eleven Dollars! Two life sentences was a stupid judgment. I think it's great they’re finally releasing the sister's and with a condition that's really easy and no trouble at all. This is kind of a happy ending for the sister's and I’m happy for them.
Grace Bonojo
ReplyDelete4th Period
I personally think that the sister's sentence was downright wrong and unjust. Their sentence really was excessive considering all they did was hit the guys over the head and took off with $11. Eleven Dollars! Two life sentences was a stupid judgment. I think it's great they’re finally releasing the sister's and with a condition that's really easy and no trouble at all. This is kind of a happy ending for the sister's and I’m happy for them.
Stephen Castillo
ReplyDelete4th Period
I think that its fair for the girls to get out. A life sentence in jail, in my perspective is way out of line for the crimes these two girls committed. Yet I do not deny that what they did was wrong. For knocking out 2 men and taking $11, these girls would have spent the rest their life in jail. Its a blessing and a curse for one of the sisters to have a kidney failure. The girls should count themselves lucky for two reasons,
1. They were able to leave prison
2. That it was only a kidney failure and not a massive vital organ
Jaison Mathew
ReplyDelete3rd Period
I think these girls should have gotten out a long time ago. Life sentences for stealing $11? It should have been 1 or 2 years since they did beat the guys up, but not life sentences. It's even nicer that one sister wants to give the other her kidney. Still, once they get out, what are they going to do? They can't get a job, a car, and will have to depend on other people for the rest of their lives. Like I said before, I totally agree with releasing them.
Merin Mathew
ReplyDeleteperiod 6
There are many other crimes that deserves life sentences. The sisters only stole eleven dollars and hit two men. But having to be in jail for life seems whack. The one sister is donating a kidney to the other just to get out of prison seems fair enough. I guess it is a good ending expect the the sister's memories in jail for 16 years.