A Kidney Really Might Save A Life

Imagine watching the news and hearing that a crime has been committed.  The guilty party is sentenced to prison for two consecutive life sentences.  The public would feel satisfied.  However, what if a governor allows them to be free by simply donating a kidney?  How would the public feel then?

 

 
 Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has ordered Gladys Scott, 38, to donate her own kidney to her ill sister Jamie Scott, 36.  This is no joke! The sisters were convicted of armed robbery in 1993.  Three accomplices smashed two male victims in the head with a shotgun, but as a plea bargain testified against the Scott sisters for a shorter sentencing.  The Mississippi Department of Corrections no longer believe the sisters pose a threat to society, feeling that Jamie Scott's condition only creates a extra cost to the state of Mississippi.  The writer, from Statesman.com feels very angry this is an example of government intrusion into a most personal decision.  Inmates should not have to surrender body parts as a condition of release.  This for me is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS for someone of the government to allow a felon to get away with such a crime, by just having to donate a body part for someone who is in desperate need just to avoid extra cost to the state.  What about the family of the two men that were lured by the Scott sisters.  What do they get?  Where is their justice?  If a simple body part donation is all it takes to get out of jail or some sort of a lighter sentence, I would think there would be one heck of a long line at our governments door waving a sign saying, "I will donate my kidney," especially since it would be their ticket out of prison.  The decision of donating or not, should be the decision of Jamie Scott, with the stipulation of still finishing her punishment in prison.  Like my father always told me, that of which we have all heard, "If you do the crime, you pay the time!"

Listening to the speed of my keyboard as I typed away, I couldn't help, but think "Yes, I'm on a roll".  My assignment for creating my very first blog in Government 2305 was quickly at an end.  I beat my assignment deadline with hours to spare.  However, in trying to submit my blog, I then realized that something was wrong.  The website indicated that the Blackboard would be under construction starting at 8 o'clock that evening, and I submitted it at exactly 7:59.  After trying to gain composure from banging my desk, I was later able to quickly submit my assignment, but only had one thing on my mind, "Why couldn't I have quicker internet access?"  While reading an article from The Christian Monitor, I found it amusing to see that President Obama plans to promote a plan for 98% of Americans to have high-speed wireless access.  Users wouldn't need a computer to access the high-speed internet, but could instead use tablets or their smart phones.  People who use the internet for work, pleasure, or education just might want to stay tuned if Obama's plan will launch.  "For our families and our businesses, high-speed wireless service, that's the next train station.  It's the next offramp," Obama said.  "It's how we'll spark new innovation, new investment, new jobs."  Whether people may agree with President Obama and his decision to promote high-speed internet access, it is something that I believe the government should not focus on and yet try to find more important issues.  The plan would involve funding in order to create a 4G wireless network in rural areas and for public safety agencies.  It would later be used to try to find more ways of growing technologies.  Although President Obama may seem to find an interest in trying to help our nation grow, it seems however, this just may be a little risky for him to handle.  People who use the internet such as myself, are quite capable of making the decision to use high-speed internet access or not and can find a way of paying for the luxury of it.