Last week, I wrote on the suspension of the consecutive life sentences of Jamie Scott and Gladys Scott by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour.
Part of the post was on how and why the Scott sisters received such severe sentences for “their alleged role in a robbery in 1993 in which no one was hurt and $11 supposedly was taken.”
The remainder of the post focused on a New York Times column by Bob Herbert bemoaning Barbour’s pardons record and, in particular, Barbour making the donation of a kidney by Gladys to her sister, Jamie, a condition for the release, calling it “unnecessary, mean-spirited, inhumane and potentially coercive. It was a low thing to do.”
I concluded by agreeing with Herbert that the message we get from Mississippi is a mixed one, but on the occasion of the New Year, with hopes for better justice, we should give Gov. Barbour at least the benefit of the doubt.
In an editorial tomorrow, my hometown newspaper, is not so indulgent.
Starting with: “An injustice landed sisters Gladys and Jamie Scott in a Mississippi prison for two consecutive life sentences. And now, injustice bordering on inhumanity surrounds their release,” it cites and agrees with medical ethicists who have decried the inclusion of the kidney donation as part of the suspension and release terms:
We agree that the release is overdue. And we agree with medical ethicists who have blasted it as a dangerous precedent. Inmates either are or are not ready for release. Donations of internal organs have no place in such decisions.
It is illegal to seek something of value in return for an organ donation. Freedom is something of value.
The editorial also cites what are “solid reasons” for their release, as stated by Barbour: “The Mississippi Department of Corrections believes the sisters no longer pose a threat to society. Their incarceration is no longer necessary for public safety or rehabilitation.”
But, like Herbert, the editors decry making medical costs to the state of Mississippi a factor in the release:
We are uncomfortable with determining prison releases based on medical costs. Clearly, there are times when humanitarian concerns about life-threatening illness should be weighed. But should the cost of medical care be a factor?
The editorial saves its biggest disdain for Barbour’s statement that “Gladys Scott’s release is conditioned on her donating one of her kidneys to her sister, a procedure which should be scheduled with urgency.”
On this the Austin American Statesman says:
Let’s be clear on what is happening. A governor has ordered a woman, as a condition of release from prison, to give up an organ. It’s a troubling concept, one you’d read about in a story from a nation with a checkered history on human rights.
The horror of it is not lessened by the fact that the kidney donation was Gladys Scott’s idea. This is a voluntary donation, assuming it happens (at this point there is no guarantee of compatibility). Gladys Scott is to be lauded for her willingness to make such a sacrifice to help her sister.
But there still is no reason for Barbour to have included it as a “condition” of release for the sisters. The nonsense of it is not lessened by the fact that Barbour’s office subsequently said Gladys Scott would not be returned to prison if, for any reason, the transplant does not happen.
According to the Statesman, Michael Shapiro, chairman of the United Network for Organ Sharing’s ethics committee and chief of organ transplantation at New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, said:
If the sister belongs in prison, then she should be allowed to donate and return to prison. And if she doesn’t belong in prison, then she should have her sentence commuted whether or not she is a donor.
On second thought—New Year or not—I tend to agree with my hometown newspaper.
