Kidney transplant as a condition of life-sentence suspension in MS

posted at 12:22 pm on December 30, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

In 2007, the tragic result of a pardon created a big problem for Mike Huckabee in his run for the Republican presidential nomination, fairly or not.  If Haley Barbour decides to make a run at the 2012 spot, he may have to explain his thinking on a sentence suspension and the ethics involved in its conditions.  The Mississippi governor issued a suspension (not a commutation or pardon) to two sisters with life sentences for convictions in 1994 of an armed robbery that netted $11 total from two men they clubbed with shotguns in an ambush, but one sister has to donate a kidney to the other as a requirement of the commutation for both:

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 on Wednesday, 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.

Normally a live kidney donation is an act of generosity and kindness, not a Get Out of Jail Free ticket.  And Barbour didn’t mince words about why this particular condition was part of the deal:

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.

[Defense attorney Chokwe] 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 may not have a problem with the condition, but this is at least one sticky ethical wicket of the suspension.  Right now, the state pays for Jamie Scott’s dialysis because of her status as an inmate in a state prison.  Once Scott gets sprung, however, her case gets treated like anyone else with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), through Medicare.  Congress mandated Medicare coverage for all cases of ESRD, including coverage for transplants and the continuing care afterward.

By releasing Jamie Scott, Barbour has essentially transferred those costs from the state of Mississippi — at least for the dialysis treatments — to the federal government.  Had the Scotts conducted a kidney transplant while in prison, the state would likely have had to absorb either its entire cost or at least a significant portion of it, as well as the cost of the lifelong immune-suppression treatments, which I can tell you from years of personal experience are very high.  Even the federal government has trouble dealing rationally with them.

So the first ethical question is whether Barbour traded the detention of a violent offender to slough off the costs of care for Jamie Scott.  The second is whether Barbour essentially bought the transplant from Gladys Scott by trading her freedom for it.  Gladys may have volunteered to donate the kidney, but that volunteering came as a result of negotiations for a pardon or commutation.  Bear in mind that the federal government refuses to allow people who aren’t incarcerated to bargain for compensation for kidney donations, which would match people under no state duress at all to ESRD patients in a forum that prevents exploitation.  And if Gladys’ offer came organically, so to speak, why didn’t the state initiate a transplant before the issue of a pardon or commutation arose?

This seems like a very strange arrangement, to say the least.  Gladys is giving a gift to her sister that is beyond measure, and that is a blessing for the sisters.  But if the state wants to bargain for kidney donations, then why can’t private citizens do the same?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It’s definitely a quandary.

Drained Brain on December 30, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Strange. But whatever the circumstances, the gift of a kidney is something special. The recipient has a pretty easy procedure compared to the donor.

I’d hope they’re really reformed and can do something with their lives after this.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Ethics quandry.

indeed….

cmsinaz on December 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Me thinks Haley Barbour just declared that he will not be running for President.

Knucklehead on December 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Umm, I’m sorry, but prison officials say they’re no longer a threat to society? 1) How could anyone with any certainty ever make such a claim without being all-knowing? and 2) so what? I’m pretty sure punishment is the main reason for prison, not ensuring threats to society aren’t roaming the streets, though that is, of course, a good reason as well.

TheBlueSite on December 30, 2010 at 12:31 PM

I think we have lost site of one of the functions of prisons of late. Sure they are there to get dangerous people off the streets however the overriding purpose is to PUNISH offenders and to act as a DETERRENT to others for committing the same acts, getting dangerous people off the streets is a BY PRODUCT of those 2 functions, once we start basing to jail people only if they are a danger to others we lose the ability of the prison system to fulfill their 2 main purposes.

the_ancient on December 30, 2010 at 12:32 PM

TheBlueSite on December 30, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Well to be fair Blue Site, don’t parole boards do that all the time?

hawkdriver on December 30, 2010 at 12:35 PM

An inmate, serving a life sentence, is dying in prison. So the state, in order to save money, lets that inmate out of jail to receive a medical procedure to extend the inmates life. I wonder if Spoc could follow that logic.

Maybe its me, but what is the definition “a life sentence”?

BobMbx on December 30, 2010 at 12:40 PM

I’ve always thought that DUI’s should be punishable by the removal of a kidney. It could either be donated to a person in need or (if the kidney is already wrecked) to science.

AbaddonsReign on December 30, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Wait. If one criminal agrees to help her criminal sister and partner in crime, that somehow mitigates their crime? What am I missing here?

They should be be required to donate a kidney to the kidney bank as a way to pay back society. That would make sense. Not to each other.

keep the change on December 30, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Uhhh. not a good idea to have this ANYWHERE near a decision by the Governor…

Khun Joe on December 30, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Umm, I’m sorry, but prison officials say they’re no longer a threat to society? 1) How could anyone with any certainty ever make such a claim without being all-knowing? and 2) so what? I’m pretty sure punishment is the main reason for prison, not ensuring threats to society aren’t roaming the streets, though that is, of course, a good reason as well.

TheBlueSite on December 30, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Lets make use of the MS prison system officials and their capacity to determine who is and who is not a threat to society.

“ALL US CITIZENS WILL PRESENT THEMSELVES FOR THREAT DETERMINATION SCREENING”

BobMbx on December 30, 2010 at 12:43 PM

But if the state wants to bargain for kidney donations, then why can’t private citizens do the same?

Because this is a different situation than a donated kidney that is “up for grabs” in the organ donation system. This is a case of one person voluntarily donating a kidney to another person. We can debate over whether the “up for grabs” donor organs should be up for “bargaining” but this situation is not the same.

JannyMae on December 30, 2010 at 12:44 PM

They were eligible for parole in a couple of years and I suspect that they have behaved while in prison. They’ve also did 16 years. So, I have no objection.

You want to be outraged, be outraged over this: LINK

Massholepussies!

Blake on December 30, 2010 at 12:44 PM

2) so what? I’m pretty sure punishment is the main reason for prison, not ensuring threats to society aren’t roaming the streets, though that is, of course, a good reason as well.

TheBlueSite on December 30, 2010 at 12:31 PM

It is the main reason, but when you’re considering letting someone out because you think the penalty was too harsh in the first place, it’s important to make sure you’re not releasing a danger to the community. This is, after all, the job of parole boards.

Esthier on December 30, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Since when is armed robbery a life sentence? (Unless the robbery resulted in the death of the victims.)

fastestslug on December 30, 2010 at 12:46 PM

An inmate, serving a life sentence, is dying in prison. So the state, in order to save money, lets that inmate out of jail to receive a medical procedure to extend the inmates life. I wonder if Spoc could follow that logic.

Maybe its me, but what is the definition “a life sentence”?

BobMbx on December 30, 2010 at 12:40 PM

That’s not why they’re being let out. It’s just a condition she must meet in order to get out. They’re both being let out because the governor (and many others) feel the sentence is unjust.

Esthier on December 30, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Right now, the state pays for Jamie Scott’s dialysis because of her status as an inmate in a state prison.

 
There’s a very easy solution to that. Make prison stays involve care at the health-department level and nothing else. Need dialysis? You probably shouldn’t be in prison.

rogerb on December 30, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Maybe its me, but what is the definition “a life sentence”?

BobMbx on December 30, 2010 at 12:40 PM

It’s an indeterminate sentence, i.e., up to life but with a parole eligibility after X number of years.

Blake on December 30, 2010 at 12:47 PM

I’m going to go full-on Tucker Carlson mode and say that we should harvest organs from all prisoners! =P

OxyCon on December 30, 2010 at 12:48 PM

For 16 years, sisters Jamie and Gladys Scott have shared a life behind bars for their part in an $11 armed robbery.

So at what point to they not get parole? $1100? $11000? $11,000,000? What difference does the amount make when they beat 2 people with shotguns? Also, are we to believe armed robbery convects with no prior record get life sentences now? What were their priors?

Rocks on December 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM

vJannyMae on December 30, 2010 at 12:44 PM

You’re 100 percent correct. The levels of screening prior to okaying a donor are extensive. The rejection factors between close relatives would be less severe. Plus, a donor has an absolute right who they want to donate to. In the case of my daughter, a fellow officer volunteered to screen and was found to be close to a perfect match. By some’s logic, her wishes would have been ignored and her kidney given to a stranger after the screening process.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2010 at 12:50 PM

OK Pandora, open the box!

rjoco1 on December 30, 2010 at 12:54 PM

Not a quandry at all. Her parts is her parts. Nothing says ‘i got rihts’ like your parts.

Limerick on December 30, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Need dialysis? You probably shouldn’t be in prison.

rogerb on December 30, 2010 at 12:47 PM

That’s not how our system works.

Esthier on December 30, 2010 at 12:58 PM

You want to be outraged, be outraged over this: LINK

Massholepussies!

Blake on December 30, 2010 at 12:44 PM

I can top your outrage with my own outrageously outrage of the year. This happened in the suburb next to mine just yesterday.

A 69-year-old south suburban man has been sentenced to four years’ probation, after he shot and killed his neighbor for letting a dog urinate on his lawn

Knucklehead on December 30, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Bad precedent. Black mark for Barbour.

scotash on December 30, 2010 at 12:58 PM

This right here is why you want people with executive experience, and not community organizers as leaders. Gov Barbour is screwed. If he does nothing and she dies he’s an uncaring bastard, if he frees her he’s a “soft on crime” wimp. If he tries to split the baby the fringe on both sides are angry. If Jamie stays behind bars, she sucks up a lot of Mississippian money with her dialysis, if she’s free, the Federal Government has to pick up the tab.
This is why Gov Barbour gets the money and the title; he gets to try and “solve” the problem, irritate the fewest constitutions, and do the right thing all at the same time. Then he’s got to be prepared to answer any questions and squelch any lingering doubts.
These kinds of decisions are real life; community organizing is all about “what should be”.

LincolntheHun on December 30, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Also, are we to believe armed robbery convects with no prior record get life sentences now? What were their priors?

Rocks on December 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM

It’s not as though it never happens. According to this article, they had none and didn’t even participate in the violence.

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/09/jamie_gladys_scott_got_life_fo.php

Esthier on December 30, 2010 at 1:02 PM

What is next? The IRS making a suggestion they will relieve my tax bill if I cough up a cornea?

Limerick on December 30, 2010 at 1:04 PM

What rule says they have to be released to do the kidney swap? Can’t they just be sent to the hospital under guard for the operation and then returned to prison after it’s over?

jnelchef on December 30, 2010 at 1:09 PM

By releasing Jamie Scott, Barbour has essentially transferred those costs from the state of Mississippi — at least for the dialysis treatments — to the federal government.

Actually, it’ll be paid for by the State of Mississippi, since they oversee Medicare and will pay any costs not covered by Federal largess.

I suspect it is also less expensive to go to a local dialysis center than to provide treatments in prison.

I R A Darth Aggie on December 30, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Let Michael Vick pay for it.

catmman on December 30, 2010 at 1:10 PM

Knucklehead on December 30, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Wow, to both actually. Messed up world we have.

Esthier on December 30, 2010 at 1:10 PM

What the hell are you folks talking about? Money shaved from your tax bill?

This is Paulism gone Frankenstein. Get a grip, folks, Uncle Sugar or Uncle Mississippi has no business, what-so-ever, being the arbitrator of where body parts go.

Limerick on December 30, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Esthier on December 30, 2010 at 1:02 PM
From the story:

They would end up doing just a few months in jail. But Jamie and Gladys were sentenced to life for their roles in the $11 caper, despite both being young mothers with no prior convictions.

Especially when it involves young women never in trouble with the law before.

Yeah I’m calling Shenanigans on that one. A lack of convictions is a long way from never being in trouble with the law before. What got expunged on their juvenile record?
What got cleared by accelerated rehab?

The sentence was too severe but don’t gimme the sweet little angels crap. They participated in an elaborate plan to rob people. This wasn’t some opportunistic mugging and the fact that they only got $11 is irrelevant.

Rocks on December 30, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Need dialysis? You probably shouldn’t be in prison.
 
rogerb on December 30, 2010 at 12:47 PM

 
That’s not how our system works.
 
Esthier on December 30, 2010 at 12:58 PM

 

Which is why the first part of my post says:
 
There’s a very easy solution to that. Make prison stays involve care at the health-department level and nothing else.
 
Note the words “solution” and “make”.

rogerb on December 30, 2010 at 1:16 PM

I don’t see a problem for Barbour here as long as the sisters don’t go on a armed robbery and killing spree after they get out of prison and get their kidneys rearranged.

SlaveDog on December 30, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Weird. Anyway, Barbour probably isn’t going to run. I’d much rather have Jindal than Barbour anyway — if we’re talking about Southern Govs.

MeatHeadinCA on December 30, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Actually, it’ll be paid for by the State of Mississippi, since they oversee Medicare and will pay any costs not covered by Federal largess.

I suspect it is also less expensive to go to a local dialysis center than to provide treatments in prison.

I R A Darth Aggie on December 30, 2010 at 1:09 PM

You’ve confused Medicare and Medicaid. Medicaid is administered by the states and subsidized in part by the federal government. The federal government pays all the costs in Medicare, including ESRD.

As far as the costs of dialysis, it does probably cost less outside rather than inside of prison, but again, it’s going to cost Mississippi nothing at all now.

Ed Morrissey on December 30, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Another case of “life” not meaning…er….LIFE.

GarandFan on December 30, 2010 at 1:23 PM

it’s going to cost Mississippi nothing at all now.

Ed Morrissey on December 30, 2010 at 1:22 PM

What? Sick or well a prisoner is a prisoner. It is the cost of business. You take on the responsibility of locking folks up you take on the costs. I can’t believe we are are even thinking about giving government the power to use body parts as a cost reduction technique.

Limerick on December 30, 2010 at 1:26 PM

*scratching my head* I don’t get the correlation…

Fallon on December 30, 2010 at 1:26 PM

What? Sick or well a prisoner is a prisoner. It is the cost of business. You take on the responsibility of locking folks up you take on the costs. I can’t believe we are are even thinking about giving government the power to use body parts as a cost reduction technique.

Limerick on December 30, 2010 at 1:26 PM

It’s definitely weird and somehow feels like it’s similar to Gov’t Death Panels. Anyway, I’m with you. If the states want to save money and not send people to jail for certain crimes (or at least for that long), then they need to change the laws.

MeatHeadinCA on December 30, 2010 at 1:29 PM

They got a pretty harsh sentence. Two others involved in the crime pleaded guilty and got around 8 year sentences. The sisters gambled on a jury trial and got far longer terms; this is not an unusual situation and is really a large part of why the plea bargain process works.

I think Haley made a sound choice here but it could come back to bite him.

GnuBreed on December 30, 2010 at 1:30 PM

I read this story on Drudge this morning, and the issue I have with this that sticks out the most is how it is reported. She is eligile for Parole in 2014 so it may have happened anyways. There is no way to know all of the evidence that Barbour is looking at.

Now on how it is reported… It starts off in the first paragraph referring to an $11 armed robbery. Most think $11 is not that big of a deal, who cares that she will be free. Then if you read halfway throug, it says:
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.

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.

Now it really sound like they were unfairly punished for a simple $11 robbery. But near the top it goes into some detail:

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.

What if the victims had fleed? Would they be dead? The $11 is irrelevant. They were not trying to steal $11, they were trying to steal everything these 2 men had. They carried shotguns and hit them in the heads which could have killed them. This woman sure sounds evil to me.

jeffn21 on December 30, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Now, about Mike Huckabee……

maynila on December 30, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Barbour, do us all a great big favor!

That thing about you wanting to run for President?

Forget about it! Just forget about it!

pilamaye on December 30, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Should inmates be getting free healthcare?

WisCon on December 30, 2010 at 1:45 PM

“Gladys actually volunteered that as part of her petition.”

I see no problem holding this woman to her word. She made the offer and it was accepted. Done deal.

RadClown on December 30, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Then we should have no problem paying a mad bomber $1,000,000 not to blow up a $2,000,000 building.

Limerick on December 30, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Ed, thanks. I’ve decided to write my representatives to encourage them to save money by adding a sentence or two to existing legislation.
 
Take (randomly) robbery in NC, for example- “Robbery as defined at common law, other than robbery with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as defined by G.S. 14‑87, shall be punishable as a Class G felony. (add) Anyone imprisoned for said offense hereby acknowledges that the state is absolved of any healthcare obligations to the imprisoned individual.”
 
Don’t think you’ll need anything more than a flu shot or some tissue in prison? Go for it. Beat people with shotguns all day long. DUI all you want. Steal everything you can find. But remember that you agreed to those terms.

rogerb on December 30, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Should inmates be getting free healthcare?
WisCon on December 30, 2010 at 1:45 PM

How about free food and free housing?

factoid on December 30, 2010 at 2:15 PM

This is a sample of what we’ll be getting under “government-run health care”!!!

We cannot surrender our lives to bureaucratic whim!!! The government MUST work “FOR THE PEOPLE”…NOT “On the people”!!!

Huckabee is wrong, and this unwarranted intrusion which affects life or death and trades it for government favors is despicable. In my opinion, Huckabee has disqualified himself from any further government office!!

landlines on December 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM

rogerb on December 30, 2010 at 2:10 PM

So, what does that mean in practice? Joe Schmoe has no assets, no home, no job. He gets six months for stealing two blankets from Walmart. Two months in, he gets appendicitis. Do you let him die? Do you treat him (knowing full well that the he will never be able to pay for his operation) and stick the hospital with the bill? How does that work in your Universe?

factoid on December 30, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Should inmates be getting free healthcare?

WisCon on December 30, 2010 at 1:45 PM

For those on death row or serving life sentences, they should get nothing more than hospice care.

BobMbx on December 30, 2010 at 2:24 PM

a suspension (not a commutation or pardon) to two sisters with life sentences for convictions in 1994 of an armed robbery that netted $11 total from two men they clubbed with shotguns in an ambush, but one sister has to donate a kidney to the other as a requirement of the commutation for both

Um, care to rewrite that much?

moochy on December 30, 2010 at 2:25 PM

I’d much rather have Jindal than Barbour anyway — if we’re talking about Southern Govs.

MeatHeadinCA on December 30, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Amen!

Laura in Maryland on December 30, 2010 at 2:28 PM

It’s not as though it never happens. According to this article, they had none and didn’t even participate in the violence.

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/09/jamie_gladys_scott_got_life_fo.php

Esthier on December 30, 2010 at 1:02 PM

If the facts presented in this article are true, Barbour has nothing to worry about.

Zaire67 on December 30, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Talk about having a little skin in the game.

mizflame98 on December 30, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Is there a reason why the media always brings up Gov. Barbour as a presidential hopeful? I’ve yet to see anyone on Hot Air or any other site argue the case for a President Barbour. I’m not saying he isn’t qualified, but it’s almost as if the MSM has picked a GOP Governor at random and put him out there as someone we must choose because they said he’s on the list of contenders.

mizflame98 on December 30, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Should inmates be getting free healthcare?
WisCon on December 30, 2010 at 1:45 PM

How about free food and free housing?

factoid on December 30, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Time to bring back the chain gangs so they can earn their keep. Make them work ala Cool Hand Luke.

mizflame98 on December 30, 2010 at 2:56 PM

I smell a carefully-constructed narrative.

Merovign on December 30, 2010 at 3:31 PM

rogerb on December 30, 2010 at 2:10 PM

 
factoid on December 30, 2010 at 2:20 PM

 

So, what does that mean in practice?

 
I wrote it down already. See 12:47pm.
 

Joe Schmoe has no assets, no home, no job.

 
Joe has green eyes. Joe likes to sit behind the wheelchair accessible spots in the movie theater so he can put his feet up on the rails, but Joe doesn’t like butter on his popcorn. And Joe’s personal details are unimportant.
 

He gets six months for stealing two blankets from Walmart. Two months in, he gets appendicitis. Do you let him die?

 
Is Mr. Schmoe in prison for the theft? If so, see 12:47pm and 2:10pm. If not, disregard.
 

Do you treat him (knowing full well that the he will never be able to pay for his operation) and stick the hospital with the bill?

 
“Treat”? Yes, on-site and to the full extent of a comparable health department’s ability. Which probably doesn’t include surgeries, but might include Tylenol. See 12:47pm. Also see 2:10pm.
 

How does that work in your Universe?

 
See above. Joe agreed to the terms at the time of the theft. He takes the blankets and takes his chances. Perhaps Joe should consider asking a church for a couple of blankets instead.
 
And please note that I’m not saying he’s forbidden to have surgery for appendicitis while in prison. Charities, families, and/or concerned individuals would certainly be welcome to pay cash upfront for Joe’s operation, and they could work out their terms with Joe separately.

rogerb on December 30, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Yeah I’m calling Shenanigans on that one. A lack of convictions is a long way from never being in trouble with the law before. What got expunged on their juvenile record?
What got cleared by accelerated rehab?

The sentence was too severe but don’t gimme the sweet little angels crap. They participated in an elaborate plan to rob people. This wasn’t some opportunistic mugging and the fact that they only got $11 is irrelevant.

Rocks on December 30, 2010 at 1:15 PM

You’re calling shenanigans based on what exactly? Your absolute faith that the government never does anything wrong ever and therefore these women can’t be anything but hardened criminals who deserved serious jail time based on something you don’t know but suspect is there?

The men who actually robbed others with a gun didn’t get life sentences. Clearly something messed up was already at play here. The fact that they have no convictions on their records is just icing on that cake.

Esthier on December 30, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Note the words “solution” and “make”.

rogerb on December 30, 2010 at 1:16 PM

I didn’t miss them. I’m just explaining why your crackpot fantasy will always stay just that.

And please note that I’m not saying he’s forbidden to have surgery for appendicitis while in prison. Charities, families, and/or concerned individuals would certainly be welcome to pay cash upfront for Joe’s operation, and they could work out their terms with Joe separately.

rogerb on December 30, 2010 at 3:54 PM

This is ridiculous. Joe’s being prevented from having an income because of the state. The state then has a responsibility to make sure that Joe’s needs are met. This is something we do even for enemy combatants and our own convicts are worth a hell of a lot more than a terrorist.

Esthier on December 30, 2010 at 4:13 PM

They carried shotguns and hit them in the heads which could have killed them. This woman sure sounds evil to me.

jeffn21 on December 30, 2010 at 1:32 PM

No, these women weren’t carrying the shot guns. Naturally, they claim to be innocent, but what they’ve been accused of (not sure what precisely they were convicted of) is leading those two men into an ambush perpetrated by other men who got significantly lighter sentences.

Essentially, the story states that one of the women, “conveniently” got nauseous in the car and made the men pull over, where they were then robbed by other men with guns.

Esthier on December 30, 2010 at 4:20 PM

So all us jailed, conservative “terrorists” will just need to offer up a kidney to get out? I have 2!!

SouthernGent on December 30, 2010 at 4:53 PM

This is so wrong in so many ways. The state should not be allowed to force you to compromise your healthy in order to discharge your legal obligations.

ahem on December 30, 2010 at 4:53 PM

Note the words “solution” and “make”.
 
rogerb on December 30, 2010 at 1:16 PM

 
I didn’t miss them. I’m just explaining why your crackpot fantasy will always stay just that.
 
Esthier on December 30, 2010 at 4:13 PM

 
So your “that’s not how our system works” was intended to counter my proposal for a potential future economic fix?
 
Hint- Government mandated healthcare fantasies weren’t “how our system worked” until a law was passed establishing it. Law passed, new method. See your flaw?
 

This is ridiculous. Joe’s being prevented from having an income because of the state.
 
Esthier on December 30, 2010 at 4:13 PM

 

Joe Schmoe has no assets, no home, no job.
 
factoid on December 30, 2010 at 2:20 PM

 
Are we discussing a new Joe now?
 

This is ridiculous. Joe’s being prevented from having an income because of the state.
 
Esthier on December 30, 2010 at 4:13 PM

 
Per my modification of the law, “Joe’s being prevented from having an income because of the state actions of Joe.”
 
Do you disagree that it would be a deterrent? Do you disagree that it would immediately begin to save money at the state and federal levels?

rogerb on December 30, 2010 at 5:04 PM

The entire story is bizarre, from the financing to the deal made.

AnninCA on December 30, 2010 at 6:22 PM

jeffn21 on December 30, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Thanks for taking the time to share this. I was thrown for a loop by the “life sentence for $11″ and thought, “Why are we talking about kidney donations when the real story was their ridiculously excessive sentence?”.

Rod on December 30, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Esthier, thank you for your reasonable comments, as always.

Do you disagree that it would be a deterrent? Do you disagree that it would immediately begin to save money at the state and federal levels?

rogerb on December 30, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Yes, but the reason “this isn’t the way the system works” is that it’s too cruel. It means a death sentence for poor criminals who need life-saving medical help, regardless of the severity of the crime. You might consider that acceptable, but I think that most people find that to be too cruel.

Just to clarify your standards for what is acceptable on the cruelty/cost-to-the-state scale, what about basic provisions like food and living conditions? Do you believe that prisons should allow poor prisoners to starve? Should prison guards prevent prisoner-on-prisoner violence? If they don’t, the state can probably save a ton of money on prison guards.

tneloms on December 30, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Don’t know if Barbour is on a quest for the presidency or not, but I’m thinking if he is, it ends here.

SukieTawdry on December 30, 2010 at 9:44 PM

A 69-year-old south suburban man has been sentenced to four years’ probation, after he shot and killed his neighbor for letting a dog urinate on his lawn

Knucklehead on December 30, 2010 at 12:58 PM

I grew up in University Park!
That place is quickly becoming a slightly safer version of Ford Heights.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 30, 2010 at 10:31 PM

One question. You say Medicare must pay for the after care for a Kidney transplant but that’s not what we were told here in Florida. In fact they seem to use that as a weeding out tool for the list because they make a huge point at Jackson Memorial in Miami to say that the drugs will cost $5000 a month (if you have insurance then great but it won’t cover all of that) for the rest of your life. So Medicare covers the transplant but not the after care according to this hospital. If so. They may be better off having the procedure done in jail and staying there for the full sentence.

Just say’n.

This is why so many live a few years on dialysis, lose the will to live and die. Medicare cut the amount of drugs for keeping the HG (energy levels) as close to normal as possible so most dialysis patients are exhausted all the time and they just give the hell up because they know they can’t afford the maintenance drugs after the surgery.

BrideOfRove on December 31, 2010 at 8:43 AM

Also. Based on that picture I can almost guarantee you the sister won’t qualify as a donor because of her weight. So. This is an irrational, poorly thought out sentence all around and why government should not be dictating health care issues.

BrideOfRove on December 31, 2010 at 8:46 AM

Honest-to-god, Ed. You should see the facilities here in Miami. They are disgusting. Transplant recipients line up in a filthy, cold halway hours before dawn with surgigal masks over their faces waiting for the doors to open to get the required bloodwork done – assembly line fashion. the waiting room chairs are old, torn and stained cloth – first floor of the building is completely urine soaked from the homeless using it as a bathroom … and they repeat over and over that the patient is immune compromised so be extra carefull. And yet the place is filthier than the bottom of a dumpster.

It’s like a scene from a horror film.

Honestly. Jail. Preferable. Could.not.be.worse.

BrideOfRove on December 31, 2010 at 8:52 AM

Guys, they were going to be coming up for parole in ’14.. right? And here’s the key: It was considered by many to be a slam dunk they were going to be let out on parole, considering the Review board was going to review the case.

So Barbour says: Okay we’ll move up your release up, PROVIDING you agree to the kidney transplant.

If this were a case of a murderer or some other similar criminal activity with no chance of reconciliation, I could see the argument against the conditional release.

So instead of having them use Mississippi Money for another 3 years of incarceration, they simply use the money to perform the kidney transfer and HOPEFULLY it costs the state of Mississippi in less in the long run.

DaSaintFan on December 31, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Let’s just cut to the chase. Use prisoners as full organ donors. A veritable smorgasbord.

Coronagold on December 31, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Except for the AIDs and Hep-C

BrideOfRove on December 31, 2010 at 10:06 PM