Justice for the Scott Sisters?

I’m not a lawyer, nor am I a judge, but I could smell something rotten from over a mile away. Several weeks ago, I read the story of Jamie and Gladys Scott. Bob Herbert highlighted the sisters in one of his columns. To me, this story screamed of a miscarriage of justice. Briefly, here’s their story:

On December 24, 1993, Scott County Sheriff’s Department in Mississippi arrested the sisters for an armed robbery they vehemently deny participation in. In 1994 they were convicted after being implicated in the crime by three young black men who confessed to the robbery in exchange of a plea bargain that gave them 10 months. The sisters were not offered a plea and went to trial.

Many bloggers have focused on the fact that this armed robbery raked in a whopping $11. I like to focus on the fact that nobody died. I would like to focus on the fact that each of the Scott sisters had a clean record. So, what should be the maximum sentence for armed robbers who are first-time offenders? In Mississippi, the answer is two life sentences. The three guys who admitted to this crime received only 10 months. They took the plea bargain. So what happened?

Right now, I’m going to speculate. I’m going to speculate that the prosecutor saw these two black women as agitators. He saw them as two people who were going against the system. His system. He saw them as two black women who did not show the proper respect to authority. He took it as a personal affront that they had the nerve to contradict him and state, multiple times, that they were innocent. Therefore, the prosecutor acted as any dictator might, with rage, and he overreacted. He threw the book at the Scott sisters. Two life sentences. (Why this is even possible in Mississippi isn’t clear to me. What’s the sentence for jaywalking, a decade of hard labor behind bars?)

Time passed. All of their appeals were denied. The Supreme Court wouldn’t even hear their case. One of the robbers signed an affidavit that stated the Scott sisters had nothing to do with the armed robbery. The Mississippi justice system simply yawned. They didn’t care. Then, one of the Scott sisters developed renal failure while in prison. (Probably from poorly controlled diabetes and hypertension. I’m just guessing, but it is an educated guess. One would figure that as an inmate you could get basic medical care. I guess not.) Jamie is dying. She needs a renal transplant. Her sister Gladys is a match. Somehow, the NAACP got involved. Governor Haley Barbour was petitioned to pardon the women.

Now, here’s where Lady Justice is turned on her head. Haley Barbour, a governor who gives out few pardons, decided to pardon the Scott sisters, although he did not hand out an unconditional pardon. They could be released only if Gladys donated a kidney to Jamie. What? Why is that a condition for their release? This is crazy. Isn’t that coercion? (Let me digress for just a half a second. Organ donation is supposed to be a completely and totally generous act. Transplant physicians do not want their patients pressuring family members to give organs.  It is illegal and violates transplant ethics. This is an extremely slippery slope.) In my opinion, Haley Barbour is wrong in so many different ways. Either commute or pardon the sentences or leave the sisters in jail. To pardon them with this stipulation is simply wrong. It is wrong for the transplant community. It is wrong for Gladys. It is wrong for Mississippi. This can’t be justice. It just doesn’t smell right. What are your thoughts?