Justice or Jim Crow's Law?

I don't think that the punishments were too harsh two grown women armed two minor children and turned them loose on society and as for the race factor it doesn't matter and don't give me that crap about Jim Crow even if the slavery was still on the books in 1995 which I doubt the 18th amendment would override that so it is really irelevent you can scream racism all day long but at the end of the day what those girls did was dangerous and it is a miracle that they didn't get somebody killed and ruin the lives of those boys more than they already have the fact of the matter is that those girls were two years and four years too old to get off easy on crap like that

Jim Crows laws? No I dont see that. Their sentences were commuted, which not knowing the case, I dont think should have happened. If you do the crime, you do the time. The fact that the assault didnt happen doesnt matter, the girls hired somebody to commit the act.

So you think that if a black person commits the same crime as a white person, the black person should receive a lighter sentence? Doing that will just encourage black people to commit more crimes since they can get away with it. Look at what happened. These two girls thought "oh lets rob some white people because they have lots of money," but they were too cowardly to do it themselves, they hired teenagers to do it for them, thinking "they can't hurt us, we're Black girls." WEll it backfired and they were convicted, which was right. No Jim Crow;s law, it was justice being served.

The law in Mississippi states this: § 97-3-79. Robbery; use of deadly weapon Every person who shall feloniously take or attempt to take from the person or from the presence the personal property of another and against his will by violence to his person or by putting such person in fear of immediate injury to his person by the exhibition of a deadly weapon shall be guilty of robbery and, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned for life in the state penitentiary if the penalty is so fixed by the jury; and in cases where the jury fails to fix the penalty at imprisonment for life in the state penitentiary the court shall fix the penalty at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for any term not less than three (3) years. The law does not state any particular amount of money that has to be involved, nor does it address the race of either perpetrator or victim. The key to "armed robbery" is the use of a deadly weapon and the putting of the victim in fear of injury. The statute does not require that there be any injury inflicted. You neglected to state in your discussion that the governor of Mississippi has commuted their sentences to time served. That the victims were unharmed was not really due to the good management of the sisters. If you arm two teen boys and send them off to rob someone, you've no control over whether they harm or do not harm the victims, so that the victims were unharmed seems to be a mitigating factor for the teen boys but not necessarily for the sisters. The amount of money involved cannot be taken into consideration, otherwise you end up with a system that punishes only those who steal from the rich, while the poor go without legal redress if they are attacked and robbed. What if these boys had killed the victims? What if the victims had had more money on them and the boys came away with several thousand dollars? Would you feel differently? The law states that the jury may determine life imprisonment or if they do not agree on that, the judge must set the sentence. The only thing a jury could have done once finding them guilty would be to affirm the life sentence. As to the boys, they were teens as you say, not legal adults as were the sisters. They testified against the sisters. They had the advantage of being minors and also of making deals with the prosecution. Is it fair? Probably they deserved more than 2 years. But there's nothing irregular about it, happens all the time. Was there any hint of racism in the jury's decision? I don't know and neither do you. It's possible. But it's clearly not a case of a judge and jury sentencing innocent people to jail for life contrary to good sense or the law.