2 "poor" women in prison for life, the suppoesd travesty

[kiryan]

2 sisters got life in prison for robbery. the left is cheering their "release" and its getting all sorts of press because one is giving the other a kidney. I suppose it also has something to do with the extremely long sentences for... well heres some quotes

http://abcnews.go.com/US/scott-sisters- ... d=12508754

The Scott sisters' case was "such a grave miscarriage of justice," said Nsombi Lambright, executive director of the Mississippi ACLU, which had been pushing for the sisters' release.

(because the long sentences were racist)

"I am so glad they are getting out now," said Lambright. "They can finally enjoy time with their family."

(ok sounds good in principle)

The Scott sisters have five children between them, youngsters who grew up without a mother and now have children of their own.

(how the fuk, they were 19 and 21 when they were arrested and they have 5 kids between them)

"How do you take two teenage girls and some teenage boys and rob a person for $11 and get life in prison," said their 46-year-old brother Willy Scott, who is home on leave after serving as an Army staff sergeant in Afghanistan. "Every day people commit terrible crimes and they don't get life in prison. They were kids. They weren't adults. They were children. How do you justify that?"

(ok bias'd since its their brother... but lets not gloss over the facts. It was armed robbery, with a gun... a shot gun. Now whether it was actually the girls or the 3 boys who testified against them, they were convicted of armed freaking robbery and 19 and 21 is not just a couple of kids, its 2 adults).

"They never should have been placed in jail at all," Olifema said of the sisters. "Even if they were not innocent, people who are literally murdered only get a slap on the wrist and don't even get six months in jail."

(here's another gem. I assume she means people who are actually murderers only get 6 months in jail... so armed freaking robbery is no big deal. regardless, it was armed freaking robbery and not over $11... the governor's offer reported that it was actualy several hundred dollars and the sentence was handed out by a biracial jury)

"There was a medical necessity, as a preferential consideration," he said. "It's also expensive for the taxpayers to keep a seriously ill person incarcerated. If [Jamie] can have this procedure, it very likely will be done through Medicaid…There are a lot of facets to it and there are arguments on each side of the ledger."

(sigh, justice may be blind, but apparently lady justice still has to pay the bills)

Now life in prison sounds pretty long for this crime... committed in relative youth... assuming there was no history... but lets stop tripping over ourselves about how amazingly unfair and racist this supposedly is. Armed robbery is a very bold crime. If you commit premeditated armed robbery (as suggested in this case, the girls lured the victim into a secluded location) you're demonstrating that you're willing to do whatever you want irrespective of right wrong and the law and its consequences... I'm just not sure a 2 or 3 year sentence would've communicated that properly to these 2... sounds like they're still in denial about their responsibility and the seriousness of their crimes.

The real story here is how the governor is trying to spin this as humanitarian or correcting a miscarriage of justice when its in fact a financial decision to shift costs .

[Zukal]

Double life sentences for armed robbery that resulted in $11 ? Even if they were the "masterminds" the sentence far exceeded the scope of the crime. Glad they're out.

[Corth]

I'm glad they are out as well. Life sentence for a 19 and 21 year old on an armed robbery count without a hardcore criminal past is too much.

[kiryan]

I don't necessarily agree with the sentence... but lets be clear on the facts.

1. the women were accused of masterminding the scheme, they reportedly picked up 2 random men at a convenience store and convinced them to drive them somewhere. This is not a small part in the crime.

2. premeditated, the girls talked two boys into driving them somewhere and then faked nausea to get them to pull over so their friends in the car behind could rob them.

3. armed robbery, a shotgun was used... a shotgun was pointed at 2 people, reports indicate that at least 1 of the sisters held the shotgun at some point during the robbery. a lot is being made of not being able to find the shotgun... big fracking deal, I assume the victims testified.

4. Barbour's press secretary Dan Turner told ABCNews.com that the amount reportedly taken in the 1994 robbery, $11, was "an urban myth," and at least several hundred dollars was netted in the crime.

5. 19 and 21 year olds are adults. They had several children by that age, but we want to cut them some slack for being children? What exactly did they expect to happen being friends with such low lifes.

6. bad lawyering, forced and retracted confessions etc etc etc... they were convicted, the appeal was denied. initial pardon or 2 was denied.

--

now while it is extremely possible these chicks were wrongfully convicted... and it does seem like a very excessive sentence.... although you need to consider that refusing to take responsibility after being convicted is often rewarded by longer sentences.

but basically, I'm attacking this on the basis of our tendency to find a story that tugs on the heart strings and gloss over everything. These sisters are portrayed as victims... how are you the victim when you are the core of the plan... they picked up two strangers at a convenience store... maybe they didn't "mastermind" it, but they were fully invested and played no small part even if you disbelieve either of them held the shotgun... They could've stopped the robbery at any point, the plan would not have worked without the sisters... and they still deny having had anyhting to do with it... do you actually believe they had absolutely nothing to do with it? Maybe 2 life sentences is too long... maybe it was racist, maybe the conviction was wrong... or maybe they're getting off on bullshit and sympathy by a politician eyeing a 2012 run.

[Corth]

Two wrongs don't make a right? There needs to be some basic relation between the crime and resulting sentence. It is not fair that a couple of teen girls get locked away for life on an armed robbery count when manslaughter convicts routinely get out sooner.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Famous people murder human beings by driving drunk and get community service. I can sympathize with their frustration, but they don't have an argument. The truth is that the drunk driving murderers that get community service should be in jail. Not that the sisters shouldn't be (unless they were actually innocent).

[kiryan]

Man slaughter is basically by definition an accident. We are talking about a premeditated, violent crime vs an issue of criminal negligence. I don't think you can compare the two sentences... but life in prison for armed robbery without a prior record is probably excessive.

Comapring sentences in general is dangerous in my opinion... every case is different and are you really saying that we should go back and re-evaluate everyone's sentence every time a judge is lenient in an unrelated case? Say Sanford (nother ponzi) gets a longer sentence than Madoff... should Madoff then be given a shorter sentence to make it fair?

Remember the crack vs cocaine thing? Sentences 5x as long for powder cocaine (used by rich white people) vs crack cocaine (po black folks). While I agree that those sentences should be more in parity, do you remember the context of the crack cocaine law? During Reagan, we were in the middle of a "war on drugs" and ghettos were the source of "the problem." Crack and cocaine may be essentially the same crime philosophically, but crack was at the center of a lot more incidents and the laws were enacted during a time of very aggressive posturing and reflected the sentiment of the time... A speeding ticket law from 1940 probably calls for a lot smaller fine than a ticket in Los Angeles (in the middle of a budget crisis) does today.

There is something to be said for not trying historical events through the current lens... The circumstances are necessarily different. If you commit a crime when the prevailing mood is very hostile... vs a more tolerant time... should the punishments be the same? Maybe, maybe not... you did know what the risk vs reward was at the time you committed the crime... Isn't that the whole principle behind laws not being retroactively applied in the negative?

[Teflor Lyorian]

The accident where you both broke the law and killed someone against all professional, medical, and societal advice.