Sisters Released From Prison on Condition of Kidney Donation: Ethical?
SodaHead Living
2011/01/08 12:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
197 votes
|
|
41% | |||
|
210 votes
|
|
44% | |||
|
68 votes
|
|
14% | |||
Two sisters were released from serving life sentences in prison on Friday on the condition that one sister donate a kidney to the other.
The kidney donation requirement raises some ethical questions, but so does the length of their sentence to begin with. Like straight out of "Les Miserables," the sisters may have stolen as little as $11.
Jamie and Gladys Scott yelled "We're free!" and "God bless y'all" as they left the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility after serving 16 years for an armed robbery, The Associated Press reported.
Jamie, 36, is on dialysis, which officials say costs the state about $200,000 a year. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour agreed to release her from prison because of her disease, but 38-year-old Gladys was released on the condition that she donate a kidney to her sister within one year.
The idea to donate the kidney was Gladys', according to the AP.
The Scotts were convicted in 1994 of an armed robbery in central Mississippi the year before. But the spoils of their crime were laughable: The sisters stole as little as $11 but no more than $200, according to various accounts of the incident.
Mitchell Duckworth, one of the women's victims, told the AP that the robbery was a terrifying experience and that he was glad to be alive. But even he thinks the sisters have done enough time.
"I think it's all right as long as they've been there," Duckworth said.
But while the amount of money netted in the robbery is unclear, it's small enough that the NAACP and other advocacy groups have blamed the lengthy sentences on account of the sisters being black.
We agree the sentences appear to have been overly harsh -- but the terms of the early release seem fair enough to us. Do you agree?
The kidney donation requirement raises some ethical questions, but so does the length of their sentence to begin with. Like straight out of "Les Miserables," the sisters may have stolen as little as $11.
Jamie and Gladys Scott yelled "We're free!" and "God bless y'all" as they left the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility after serving 16 years for an armed robbery, The Associated Press reported.
Jamie, 36, is on dialysis, which officials say costs the state about $200,000 a year. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour agreed to release her from prison because of her disease, but 38-year-old Gladys was released on the condition that she donate a kidney to her sister within one year.
The idea to donate the kidney was Gladys', according to the AP.
The Scotts were convicted in 1994 of an armed robbery in central Mississippi the year before. But the spoils of their crime were laughable: The sisters stole as little as $11 but no more than $200, according to various accounts of the incident.
Mitchell Duckworth, one of the women's victims, told the AP that the robbery was a terrifying experience and that he was glad to be alive. But even he thinks the sisters have done enough time.
"I think it's all right as long as they've been there," Duckworth said.
But while the amount of money netted in the robbery is unclear, it's small enough that the NAACP and other advocacy groups have blamed the lengthy sentences on account of the sisters being black.
We agree the sentences appear to have been overly harsh -- but the terms of the early release seem fair enough to us. Do you agree?
Read More: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5...
And you think it is best to put them back in jail, so that the taxpayers have to pay for the transplant meds (tens of thousands of dollars a year)?
Research shows, over and over, that black defendants get much harder sentences for the exact same crime. That is not bleeding heart or socially correct analysis -- every study has shown it. Many, many jurisdictions have radically altered their policies because of such results.
From your response, it seems like you believe in an "all or nothing" sort of justice system -- if a person commits a crime, they should be punished as harshly as possible (regardless of the crime). I pray you are never stopped for speeding, because under your system you would receive a very long jail sentence for going 40 in a 25 zone...
I am a former Police Officer who still does work for our government on occasion and your last prayer on my behalf was both childish and naive. Finally for every STUDY you cite I can show you one that indicates the opposite. Our laws should not be controlled by studies they should
be and are controlled by the people who pass them.
People SHOULD pass laws, but the laws should be based on facts, not emotions (like your belief in harsh punishment). If someone in my family were harmed, I would advocate painful, violent punishment for the perpetrators, but our country is BEST served by DISPASSIONATE analysis of outcomes and judgment, not a simple belief in vengeance and fury.
There is a dramatic difference between studies showing what I reported and those you claim you can dredge up for the difference: mine are based on sound science. They represent real work by honest, real people. Some had agendas, but all had a goal to discover and report the truth.
The fact that you dismiss them without even considering what they say is more a testament to your mental state than a reflection on what makes a government sound.
They have paid their debt to society. Let them go to try and lead productive lives. Justice without mercy or compassion is NOT justice. Not to mention, isn't justice supposed to be blind? Isn't it true, statistically speaking that blacks get harsher sentences for the same crimes?
Execution and life imprisonment are fair sentences for murderers, serial murderers, violent rapists and child molesters. Life sentences and executions are not for two women who steal $11.
assistance. That's okay I guess because people like YOU will cite statistics
that say its WHITE OPPRESSION ONCE AGAIN. Justice IS blind but now she's deaf,dumb and DYING.
As for your other comments, wow... Just wow... Some staggering disrespect there. You don't know the women involved. You have no way of knowing whether or not they'll become welfare mothers or whether or not they will actually try to lead productive lives. You just don't know, so you really have no right to say it.
Justice is supposed to be blind, but, in Mississippi, it just might not be the case.
BTW, you don't sound like a very nice person. I hope you're not in any sort of political position.
I have to agree, though, the level of his rage is surprising.
If we didn't, I imagine they might turn to crime (again) to pay for it. I know I would steal or rob if it meant my sister might live.
GAH - Justice in Mississippi sounds like China.
In this case one right and two wrongs make for the correct ending.
The state is fixing that mistake, and also avoiding the cost of the transplant meds (tens of thousands of dollars a year). I don't think of that as a joke -- you do?