Mississippi Justice
December 30th 2010 19:27
There’s a story in the news today about two black sisters who were sentenced to life in prison for stealing $11 dollars during a mugging and robbery seventeen years ago in Mississippi, and who are now going to have their sentences suspended through the generosity of Mississippi governor Haley Barbour.
The sisters, Jamie and Gladys Scott, were convicted in 1994 of attacking two men in 1993 with a shotgun, hitting them over the head with said shotgun, and relieving their wallets of $11. Each sister was convicted of two counts of armed robbery and sentenced to life in prison (it didn’t matter that the sisters thought shotguns were clubs).
What makes this interesting is that Barbour is not pardoning the sisters. He is essentially kicking them out of jail because one of the sisters, Jamie, is costing the State of Mississippi a lot of money; she has kidney failure and is receiving dialysis treatments to keep her alive. Although the sisters are eligible for parole in 2014, it is cheaper for the State of Mississippi to get rid of them now. Barbour made Gladys promise, as a condition for her suspended sentence, that she would donate one of her kidneys to Jamie. Again, this promise was just for Barbour’s political image because Gladys, in her appeal to the parole board, had previously offered to donate one of her kidneys to Jamie: moot point! By making a kidney donation a condition of Gladys’ suspended sentence, the State of Mississippi hopes to insure that it will have no further responsibility for Jamie’s health after the transplant.
Suppose Gladys refused to part with one of her kidneys; after all, can’t a case be made that the State of Mississippi is using coercion to take one of her organs? Would the State of Mississippi then refuse to suspend the sentence of Jamie? If Jamie was worthy of a suspended sentence because the nature of her crime didn’t require a life sentence, and the nature of her illness might bankrupt the prison system of the State of Mississippi, shouldn’t she have her sentence suspended no matter what Gladys decides? If reason dictates a suspended sentence for Jamie, why wouldn’t it dictate one for Gladys, without the mandate to lose an organ?
The sister’s suspended sentence is just a heavy handed attempt by Barbour to white wash his political gaff last week when he heaped praise on the Yazoo City pro-segregation Citizens Council during an interview with the Weekly Standard (a Conservative magazine and blog founded by William Kristol) because he is thinking of running for the Republican nomination for President in 2012:
“You heard of the Citizens Councils? Up north they think it was like the KKK. Where I come from it was an organization of town leaders. In Yazoo City they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the Klan would get their ass run out of town. If you had a job, you'd lose it. If you had a store, they'd see nobody shopped there. We didn't have a problem with the Klan in Yazoo City.” (“Haley Barbour’s Account Of Civil Rights Era In Mississippi Assailed By NAACP, Historians,” Amanda Terkel, Huffington Post, 12/20/10).
The fact is, when the Supreme Court ordered school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education, Citizens Councils were formed to counter desegregation by intimidating blacks and whites who signed petitions protesting disregard of the ruling. Businesses would publish the names of the petition signers, and they would be fired from their jobs and publicly threatened. Barbour was correct that town leaders were against violence because violence would threaten the economic well being of the whites, but the Citizens Councils used intimidation nonetheless to extend segregation. In fact, the majority of white students still do not attend Yazoo City’s public schools.
It’s difficult to believe that the Republican Party would embrace Haley Barbour as its 2012 presidential nominee; we’ll see what else he’ll have to do to keep his image white washed and his hopes alive for 2012 because he can’t keep his mouth shut.
The sisters, Jamie and Gladys Scott, were convicted in 1994 of attacking two men in 1993 with a shotgun, hitting them over the head with said shotgun, and relieving their wallets of $11. Each sister was convicted of two counts of armed robbery and sentenced to life in prison (it didn’t matter that the sisters thought shotguns were clubs).
What makes this interesting is that Barbour is not pardoning the sisters. He is essentially kicking them out of jail because one of the sisters, Jamie, is costing the State of Mississippi a lot of money; she has kidney failure and is receiving dialysis treatments to keep her alive. Although the sisters are eligible for parole in 2014, it is cheaper for the State of Mississippi to get rid of them now. Barbour made Gladys promise, as a condition for her suspended sentence, that she would donate one of her kidneys to Jamie. Again, this promise was just for Barbour’s political image because Gladys, in her appeal to the parole board, had previously offered to donate one of her kidneys to Jamie: moot point! By making a kidney donation a condition of Gladys’ suspended sentence, the State of Mississippi hopes to insure that it will have no further responsibility for Jamie’s health after the transplant.
Suppose Gladys refused to part with one of her kidneys; after all, can’t a case be made that the State of Mississippi is using coercion to take one of her organs? Would the State of Mississippi then refuse to suspend the sentence of Jamie? If Jamie was worthy of a suspended sentence because the nature of her crime didn’t require a life sentence, and the nature of her illness might bankrupt the prison system of the State of Mississippi, shouldn’t she have her sentence suspended no matter what Gladys decides? If reason dictates a suspended sentence for Jamie, why wouldn’t it dictate one for Gladys, without the mandate to lose an organ?
The sister’s suspended sentence is just a heavy handed attempt by Barbour to white wash his political gaff last week when he heaped praise on the Yazoo City pro-segregation Citizens Council during an interview with the Weekly Standard (a Conservative magazine and blog founded by William Kristol) because he is thinking of running for the Republican nomination for President in 2012:
“You heard of the Citizens Councils? Up north they think it was like the KKK. Where I come from it was an organization of town leaders. In Yazoo City they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the Klan would get their ass run out of town. If you had a job, you'd lose it. If you had a store, they'd see nobody shopped there. We didn't have a problem with the Klan in Yazoo City.” (“Haley Barbour’s Account Of Civil Rights Era In Mississippi Assailed By NAACP, Historians,” Amanda Terkel, Huffington Post, 12/20/10).
The fact is, when the Supreme Court ordered school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education, Citizens Councils were formed to counter desegregation by intimidating blacks and whites who signed petitions protesting disregard of the ruling. Businesses would publish the names of the petition signers, and they would be fired from their jobs and publicly threatened. Barbour was correct that town leaders were against violence because violence would threaten the economic well being of the whites, but the Citizens Councils used intimidation nonetheless to extend segregation. In fact, the majority of white students still do not attend Yazoo City’s public schools.
It’s difficult to believe that the Republican Party would embrace Haley Barbour as its 2012 presidential nominee; we’ll see what else he’ll have to do to keep his image white washed and his hopes alive for 2012 because he can’t keep his mouth shut.
| 30 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
Nightly DVD Review
Cinema Voyage
Green and Healthy
The Writer's Nook
1. Whether the amount stolen was $11 or $1100 does not matter. ARMED ROBBERY IS ARMED ROBBERY. No one made them rob anyone. How they used the gun is immaterial. They USED it. They could have used a bat and it would have been the same thing.
2. The second sister does not have to give the kidney. You have spun this like much of the liberal media. She did not have to give the kidney. She was told that IF SHE CHOSE TO, she would be given early parole to take care of herself and her sister. If she chose not to, she could serve the remainder of her time. Where is the bad deal there? If they would not have committed ARMED ROBBERY (A FELONY) they would not be in jail to begin with.
3. So, she commits a crime, and since she did, I should take care of her for the rest of her life because she has a serious ailment in a place where she may not be able to contribute to society? Who do you think will be paying for it on the outside? RIGHT! The taxpayers because she automatically qualifies for medicaid. She STILL gets the medical attention she needs, it is just coming from a source that is subsidized by the federal government moreso than when she is in prison which comes more from the state.
Personally, I think it is a win-win situation for her. She gets out of jail early and is able to spend time with her family. Her sister has an opportunity to get out as well. (BUT DOES NOT HAVE TO, she can serve the remainder of her sentence if she chooses, or she can be free and help her sister too. She STILL does not have to pay for it. In addition, her sister will live. Where is the bad in that?
What Barbour did NOT include in his speech is that, at that time, those people believed in segregation.
So what? Malcolm X, who referred to white people as "whitey" and advocated giving black people a section of the USA that they would govern on their own, is a person Obama admired. Does that make Obama guilty of believing in segregation? If he did, did he have the "right to be wrong" and change his mind on the issue? Is segregation wrong? OF COURSE, NO MATTER WHO DOES IT. However, Obama didn't have anything bad to say about Malcolm X.
Nor did he have any harsh words toward his minister Rev. Wright when he said, "God DAMN America!" In fact, he took the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope" from the title of one of the minister's sermons. Incidentally, it was the SAME sermon that Wright made his "enlightening" statement.
Does that make Obama guilty by association?
NO. IT DOES NOT. Because no matter what Rev. Wright says, he has the right to say it as long as it does not cause harm to others. Likewise, it should NOT reflect on Obama because just because he knows someone, maybe even respects someone, it does not mean that he AGREES with them.
The situation with Barbour is identical. Just because he did not choose to say anything negative about people does not mean he supports what they believed in.
What is typically forgotten, and is not mentioned here, is that during the time of the civil rights movement, all of the Southern states were BLUE. There was only 1 or 2 state senators that were Republican and the Republicans were for ending segregation.
They also forget that there are state supported colleges and universities that have openly stated that they wish to be "Traditionally Black Colleges" (Jackson State University, Delta State, and Alcorn State) but no one says anything about that. Guess what? Barbour supported them in what they wanted. To continue getting state funding and not have to recruit white students unless they chose to. (Again, no one wants to mention that.)
My point is this... Those girls committed a violent crime against someone who did them no wrong. They deserved whatever time they were given (AND for the record, their jury was predominantly black). However, maybe they should both just sit in jail and she goes on an organ donor list and hopes to live. (You're not allowed by law to donate organs when you are incarcerated. Did you know that?)
Secondly, Barbour cannot be any more guilty by association than Obama.
Comment by nightlydvdreview
Nightly DVD Review
Cinema Voyage
Green and Healthy
The Writer's Nook
"National NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous thanked Barbour on Thursday after meeting him at the state capital in Jackson, calling his decision "a shining example" of the way a governor should use the power of clemency."
and
"This is something that she came up with," said Barbour's spokesman, Dan Turner. "This is not an idea the governor's office brokered. It's not a quid pro quo."
and
"Gov. Haley Barbour's decision to suspend the life sentences of Jamie and Gladys Scott was applauded by civil rights organizations and the women's attorney, who have long said the sentences were too harsh for the crime."
and lastly,
"Mississippi Rep. George Flaggs, an outspoken Democrat in the state legislature and an African-American, scoffed at suggestions that Barbour's motive was political and said the decision wasn't an attempt to gloss over the magazine comments.
Flaggs said Barbour suspended the sentences "not only to let this woman out of prison, but to save her life.
"If she doesn't get a kidney, she's going to die," he said."
All came from Yahoo! News (and the NY Post).
Make your judgement on his integrity based on your own thoughts. I will trust the people who KNOW him, like the "outspoken democrat."
Comment by Schmoozer
I don't condone racism from anyone, white or black, but your argument about Malcom X doesn't hold water considering the treatment of blacks in this country from the time the first slave set foot in this country until the present. Whites were never so oppressed (certainly not Barbour) and can never understand the frustrations and anger of blacks. As for the comments by black leaders praising Barbour, they were just expressions of gratitude that someone finally is doing something about this injustice, even if for the wrong reasons. The punishment should fit the crime, and life in prison is a punishment that does not fit this crime, especially when rapists, child molesters, and other criminals who are white receive sentences that are not as severe.
I am not liberal, but I am a middle of the road leaning to conservative Democrat. That still makes me left of center, and certainly left of reactionary Conservatives. The South may have been blue, but the Dixicrats were blue in name only. They easily switched to Republican when liberals took control of the Democratic Party.
Again, thanks for taking the time to comment, and I hope you will be motivated to comment on future essays that I post.
Comment by nightlydvdreview
Nightly DVD Review
Cinema Voyage
Green and Healthy
The Writer's Nook
1. The girl who was NOT sick contacted the office of the governor and requested that she be allowed to leave prison so she could donate her kidney to her sister. The governor's office said that her sentence would be commuted if she promised that she would do what she stated. That is not coercion. SHE made the offer. In this case, the governor is caught in a catch 22. If he did not release her, then it would have been claimed that he had no sympathy for black people, not even when dying. If he did, he would anger some of his own party by releasing a convicted felon.
I heard him on the radio just a few days ago being grilled by the talk show host about why he would release the girls. He argued with the conservative announcer and it became rather heated about this issue. He finally ended it by turning it on the host, telling him imagine it was HIS family. Would he think it was the right thing to do then?
The offer of the suspended sentence was not made until SHE contacted the governor's office and made the offer to THEM.
If she is not a tissue match, the governor has gone on record that she will continue to be free. If she backtracks and says that she does not want to do it now, well, SHE made that as a condition for her release. SHE said that she wanted to get out so she can donate her kidney to her sister.
2. After further investigation into the case, I found that the girls did not commit the crimes themselves.
Instead, they convinced a 14 year old a 15 year old and a boy who had just become 18 to do it for them.
Here, according to court records, is how everything went.
1. The two girls (age 17 and 19 at the time) planned the crime. The older was supposed to fake illness in the back seat after asking someone to take them to a store.
2. These same women convinced the two boys age 14 and 15 to bring weapons and rob the men when they get the car pulled over by kidnapping the men and taking THEM to a secluded area. They were not supposed to beat the men. They were supposed to SHOOT them.
3. The 18 year old was driving the car behind them and assisted in taking the men to another area. Because he turned "state's evidence" he pled to a lesser charge and served only 3 years. (NOT SURE, but I think he was convicted of false imprisonment rather than kidnapping.)
4. $11 was stolen. The argument in the beginning was that since it was only $11 they should have not been sentenced for so long.
The point was not the small amount of money. The point was that the two women (who planned this crime) convinced two minors to commit the crime and they wanted the kids to KILL the two men. They beat them instead with the barrels of shot-guns, which is the same as beating someone with a pipe. The men were simply trying to do something nice for someone else.
This all indicates that this was a planned crime. The NAACP stated at the beginning that "is that all these women's lives were worth? $11" Well, it must have been all the two men's lives were worth to the girls. The plan was to kill them, not beat them and leave witnesses, and they didn't even have the courage to do it themselves. They wanted young teens to do it for them because, "they'll just get a slap on the wrist." They won't serve time.
The crime was committed against two men, regardless of their race, who were innocent.
In this case, also, the NAACP NEVER said the verdict was racist. The reason? The jury was predominantly black as were the victims.
In this case, race is not an issue.
The nature of the crime, because of the involvement of minors being coerced into committing the crime while the planners sat by and watched, means that the punishment was appropriate.
If these boys had killed the two men, the two women would have been given life without parole. The two boys would have been tried as adults (capital murder would allow the 14 year old to be tried as an adult).
The women would have ruined the lives of two children and ended the lives of two men. The 18 year old who received three years would have been charged with kidnapping and accessory to murder and served many years himself.
Personally, I would not have released them. They would have died in jail. The children would have been the priority and their well-being. Can find nothing that indicates what happened to either of the kids. I hope it did not turn THEM to a life of crime. I hope they will not be effected by what happened for the rest of their lives. But on the last one, I fear that I hope against hope.
One thing I really DO hope though.
I hope the tissue sample is a match and they live so they can both think every day about how they ruined the lives of two kids. They are not just predators on our society, they were predators on our future.