7 ms·
A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence
- bleh123 7y agoI'm not fully convinced the courts got this one completely right. This is a very interesting legal argument and lays emphasis on the need for legislators to express their intentions in writing more fully as opposed to writing laws with such loose and widely applicable terms such as "Life" without giving the term or their intent in using it more context. If, as the Judge argues, that "he did not legally die as his presence in this courtroom indicates": 1. He's indicating the existence of a written law stating that a person may only die once. 2.Additionally, there are actually legal provisions that delegate to the medically accepted definition of "Death" instead of deciding it themselves. 3. The Judge indicates that ruling in the plaintiffs favor would cause chaos for situations where medically induced resurrections would confuse laws from insurance to banking. That is not the plaintiffs burden to bear. That does not sound like a valid reason to rule on the interpretation of a law. Finally, and i believe the most important part here: The US Constitution lays liberty and freedom at the heart of individual rights conferred upon people from God or a superior force. All laws enforced by the Government must be explicitly legislated within these bounds since it prevents the default case moving from "Individual God given rights, unless expressly regulated within constitutional boundaries" to "Rights conferred by the Government discretion" -> The second case is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. The burden of legislation (And clearly elucidating intent) is upon the Legislative body. By leaving ambiguous the part within the letter of the law that regulates individual liberties for individuals found guilty of a crime, the Legislative has "given up" their jurisdiction in the edge case scenario which is in front of the court since it is "undefined" - This would have been a great case for the courts to weigh in and restrict legislative over reach and force more clearly written laws. For those who think this is picking on too many nits - it sets precedent. A better example for argument might be the tax code and the popular saying that there is no living person capable of declaring that they are fully operating within the letter of the tax code due to the many levels of discretionary interpretation it allows.
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoIt absolutely feels like a judge deciding “here’s the decision I want because it fits my personal understanding of conmon sense in this situation” — which is frightening since, based on my mom’s experience working in a variety of state & county judges’ offices, there’s not much reason to trust the common sense of judges at all, even when they are basically benevolent people (a lot of them aren’t).
- PhasmaFelis 7y agoIt's an interesting world we've come to where "you are alive, therefore you have not yet died" can be considered an idiosyncratic personal viewpoint.
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoI did not say anything like that. I said the judge is trying to effectively inject the judge’s notion of common sense in an extralegal way. The impression of whether the judge’s common sense is valid or invalid has utterly nothing to do with this issue at all. The issue is that off the cuff common sense reasoning is not rigorous legal reasoning, it can have all kinds of unintended consequences.
- GavinMcG 7y agoWhy on earth do you claim the judge is doing this? The law in Iowa defines death as irreversible. What reason do you have for saying the judge's common sense is what's at play rather than, you know, the law?
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoYou’re really missing the point. What if a prisoner suffers a brain trauma and it’s unknown if it’s irreversible or not? Or under some future law, the prisoner’s family can keep them on life support and their status as either having fully served the sentence or not has ramifications for life insurance payouts from a complex employment contract with a “morality” clause like some athletes have. You could wheel the prisoner on a bed into the courtroom with machines beeping. What would this judge’s ruling say to do? You can “see” the “living” prisoner present, but it’s not medically or legally known at that moment if it’s reversible, and if it’s not, the declaration of “death” actually has urgent ramifications for other people. It’s precisely because there can be such complicated corner cases that we absolutely should not accept a judge’s snappy line of rhetoric about seeing the prisoner present in the courtroom as legal basis. This has direct implications because that one-off armchair wisdom of that one judge suddenly affects what the state definition of death means by “irreversible” even if that was not the common sense intention. It has nothing at all to do with loopholes for this particular prisoner.
- williesleg 7y agoIf he's in New York or California, just let him go. They have more criminals on the streets than in jail. Being in jail means you're so stupid you got caught, that's all.
- sokoloff 7y agoPerhaps the easiest patch would be to make all life sentences “life plus 500 years”. Methuselah can work around it this way; it should cover everyone else...
- hirundo 7y agoThat would be awfully rough on their cell mates.
- LyndsySimon 7y agoPut them together. In the “Hole”. Problem solved :)
- Markoff 7y agoyou still need to provide food and other services to prisoner, it would be quite pricey and lot of wasted resources
- dredmorbius 7y agoIn roughly 2520, this will give rise to the l+500 problem.
- oxymoran 7y agoIt’s the DNR that makes this one tricky. His lawyer should have made the argument that keeping him alive against his will instead of letting him die constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
- bdcravens 7y agoEven if he doesn't get release, I think he will have grounds for a substantial financial judgment. Obviously that's not very useful in prison.
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoPretty sure money is useful in prison.
- Nextgrid 7y agoCan you legally access & use money in prison, and what would you buy?
- bryanrasmussen 7y agofirst, as this is an American prison you will probably want to be using the money on your accounts to buy food that to eat instead of depending on the often inedible, non-nutritious stuff that is available from the prison kitchen. second, it's quite a well known scandal regarding how systems are set up to rip off inmates for phone services https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/31/inside-shadowy-business-prison-phone-calls/ https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/31/inside-shad... so if you are a prisoner with money that is nice that you can actually call people when you want as long as you want. third, depending on where you are at the commissary probably has other things you want, and if you have enough of those things you can trade that for other things inside that you might want. (of course you do not legally access the money, it is on an account that you can use, you can also - although the process can be convoluted - release money to visitors and those visitors could give it to other people who are related or confederates of other people inside allowing you to buy other things that way [which is of course going to be against the rules]) I could go on, but I find the question somewhat weird - I'm guessing you must be from a country with no knowledge of American pop-culture or anything because this is quite a bit past even 10000 territory https://www.xkcd.com/1053/ https://www.xkcd.com/1053/ on edit: reference article for bad American prison food https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/ezq59z/what-its-like-to-eat-some-of-the-worst-prison-food-in-america https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/ezq59z/what-its-like-to-e...
- tomohawk 7y agoIt just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. - Miracle Max
- harimau777 7y agoIt seems to me that defining clinical death as the loss of heart beat and breathing is outdated and it should instead be defined as the cessation of higher brain activity.[1] Alternately, it seems to me like referring to that as death is playing semantics. It seems to me that the defining feature of death is that you cannot come back from it[2]. I'd be interested to hear other perspectives or if I might be overlooking something. [1] I'm guessing there might still be a place for the current definition of clinical death in situations where its not viable to monitor brain activity such as triaging disaster victims. [2] As a Christian I would see an exception for a case where someone dies and and God violates the laws of nature to bring them back. However, I realize that Atheists don't believe that's possible and even from a Christian perspective it's exceedingly rare (I can think of 4 times where it potentially happens in the entire Bible) so I don't think that really impacts practical discussions of death.
- TomMarius 7y agoI am sure if the God exists they don't need an exception in our law
- bjt2n3904 7y agoAn interesting point I heard on [2], Tim Keller if I remember right. Is isn't that God is "violating" the laws of nature, he's restoring things to the way they would have been without the fall in the garden.
- notus 7y agoIt's my understanding that with the creation of resuscitation methods and life-support systems that clinical death was already redefined to include cessation of brain activity. If they were not put on life support for example they would meet the definition of death through cessation of respiratory system and heartbeat. Pretty sure this guy doesn't have a leg to stand on.
- cactus2093 7y agoThis comment took a turn in your last paragraph in a way that genuinely fascinates me since it was otherwise very logical. So you would write laws around the idea of things that have never been shown to be physically possible, just because you believe them to be possible? How far would you take this? Should we bring back laws against witchcraft? Should other religions get to define their own laws based on what they expect to be possible, or just Christianity? And if such a law is tested in court, how should we prove that it was divine? Maybe this case of the prisoners heart starting again was really God intervening, why should it not trigger your proposed God clause?
- jeffwass 7y agoJon Snow used the same logic to get out of the Night’s Watch.
- richmarr 7y agoThanks a bunch.
- foobarian 7y agohttps://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/04/27/the-song-of-something-something https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/04/27/the-song-of-so...
- jacurtis 7y agoI mean, he was "resurrected". But I guess what is the difference between a witch ressurecting you with a magical force, and a doctor resurrecting you with CPR.
- slowenough 7y agoI think the biggest claim here was the clear violation of his due process rights, re DNR. Judgement sidestepped this by saying there was no ruling in lower court so we can't rule on it, I think.
- nabla9 7y agoSince it's Iowa, he should use Jesus Christ as precedent. Jesus died for the the sins of all mankind. His atonement was not reversed after the resurrection.
- dbcurtis 7y ago> Since it's Iowa, I don’t understand the connection you are trying to make.
- barry-cotter 7y agoCoastal people versus flyover country people
- dbcurtis 7y agoSo what is the implication about this homogeneous group you call “flyover people”?
- barry-cotter 7y agoThere are large groups of people in the US, primarily living on the coasts, who view the people living in inland states with contempt and hatred. The same attitude is also expressed as “square states”. Any American who thinks that other Americans will find an appeal to Christianity legally convincing has a warped view of US politics. This particular attitude is like Californians who think that gay people aren’t safe in Texas, or that non-white people are at constant risk of physical violence in Alabama. I’m not endorsing this viewpoint, it’s just the most obvious explanation for anything as stupid as what nabla9 wrote.
- nabla9 7y agoThe Bible Bench : The message from fundamentalists to state jurists is clear: Judge conservatively, lest ye not be a judge. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/bible-bench/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/bible-bench/ Iowa Supreme Court takes a right turn under Gov. Reynolds https://apnews.com/357e55b3c4ca4432b8a460521f9034ff https://apnews.com/357e55b3c4ca4432b8a460521f9034ff
- zw123456 7y agoThis story reminds me of an old movie called Flatliners (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099582/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099582/) where medical students experimented with near death by intentionally inducing cardiac arrest. If you get a life sentence you could hire the Flatliners to come and kill you for a few minutes and then bring you back. hehehe
- bluedino 7y agoOr just OD in heroin and wait for a guard to come administer narcan
- GavinMcG 7y agoBefore you comment about the judge getting it wrong, do your due diligence and at least get familiar with the plain text of the law. In Iowa, "death" is defined in Iowa Code §702.8 as "an irreversible cessation of spontaneous respiratory and circulatory functions". It says "irreversible" right off the bat. IANAL but legally speaking this is an easy and uncontroversial case.
- cryptica 7y agoIf the court finds that he is dead, the prison should follow standard procedure and have the body buried or cremated immediately.
- ropiwqefjnpoa 7y agoHis argument is that he was serving a single life sentence and his "dying" means it was served. Lame, but he's probably got the time...
- nprateem 7y agoIt seems to me that the Ship of Theseus is relevant [1]. A temporary loss of heart beat/breathing in a body receptive to resuscitation - and which is resuscitated - shouldn't really be considered dying. We don't consider the continual loss and replacement of bodily tissue over the course of several decades to result in a new person, or that waking after sleeping is classified as a new birth. And anyway, if the guy was declared dead, should he have expected a new birth certificate and to have his age reset to 0? Would he really suggest someone could be "born" into someone elses body? In that case, perhaps he should be "exorcised", or is he claiming he's now a zombie? Do zombies have legal rights? If not, what was he proposing was the relationship between his pre "dead" personality/identity and his new one? You can see why the judge went the way he did... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
- phaedrus 7y agoI'm currently reading the book "Fall, or Dodge in Hell" by Neal Stephenson. Speaking in general terms to avoid too many spoilers, there's a scene where it's strongly implied one character is responsible for the death of another. Both end up having their brains scanned and uploaded to a simulated afterlife. (The other dying of natural causes soon after.) Not addressed (at least, not yet) in the book, but something I couldn't help wondering, is how or should this crime be punished? Perhaps the killer shouldn't have been allowed to be uploaded, but that had already occurred.
- mrtweetyhack 7y agoLife sentence means life in prison. If he had gotten the death sentence, then maybe he has a argument.
- Markoff 7y agobut he completed his life sentence when they didn't let him die and resuscitated against his will, that's just cruel and waste of money, they should held person who resuscitated him liable for all expenses regarding him until death
- kornork 7y agoAt some point, artificially extended life spans may become feasible and common. It seems to me if/when that happens, a life sentence should be considered cruel and unusual.
- beerandt 7y agoThat's a hard line to draw, when including things like drug overdoses, hunger strikes or suicide.
- dredmorbius 7y agoDepends. Do immortals become more good / lawful, less good / lawful, or does it vary? What are you going to do about the incorrigably unlawful / evil?
- greggyb 7y agoI see a lot of people playing language lawyer with what it means "to die." I think another fruitful thing to think about what "for life" means. It is not unreasonable to interpret "for life" as "while living", instead of "until dead." Indeed, the sentence if "life in prison" is logically equivalent to "no life outside of prison." No one debates the fact that this man is alive now. If his sentence is to live only in prison, then there is no issue. The interesting case is whether declining to honor his DNR counts as cruel and unusual punishment by extending his term in prison.
- sandworm101 7y agoBut remember that this is America, where super-natural sentencing is a norm. Prisons are filled with people serving double, triple or "life plus 100 years" sentences. Logic isn't running this show.
- aaomidi 7y agoI honestly think there's nothing more disgusting than imprisoning someone. I've actually made this argument in my social sciences class that the reason prison sentences are so long is that people generally thought/think the afterlife exists. It's easy to take away an individuals right to life when you think there's going to be another one in another life. I would personally much rather have the death penalty than anything above 5 years in prison. I don't understand how we're collectively okay with just caging a human being... It's so terrifying and disgusting. The act of imprisonment for over 5 years itself is a cruel and unusual punishment :(
- Markoff 7y agoif he was serving only one life sentence and had DNR order, then it's fair to say he served his sentence if they resuscitated him against his will if he would be serving multiple life sentences than he would just fulfill first one, otherwise what's the purpose of multiple life sentences in US? we don't have this nonsense in Europe
- beerandt 7y ago>what's the purpose of multiple life sentences in US To compensate for what was perceived to be an overly sympathetic appeals system.
- dredmorbius 7y agoThere are all kinds of interesting implications and questions here. 1. What is the meaning and intent of a "life sentence", or other punishment? 2. Does it apply to a singular life, or all lives a prisoner might have? 3. What (if any) legal definitions for "life" and "death" are there, in relevant jurisdictions. And how are they treated in sentencing laws? 4. Is clinical death the same as legal death? 5. Is there legal precedent for obligations lifted (or privileges revoked / denied) on the basis of temporary clinical death? E.g., lifetime obligations for debt, etc.? 6. With advances in medical technology, what are the implications of either induced death (e.g., the film "Flatliners") or extended / eternal life (Singularity, cryopreservation) on future legal matters -- not only sentencing but contracts and the like. 6a. If a convict were sentenced to death and were clinically but reversably killed, would that sentence be considered fulfilled? 6b. What of eternal or lifelong benefits or obligations -- government pensions, wills, property ownership, etc., in the case of immortal or resurrected individuals. 7. Is a resurrected individual the same or a different person? Clinically? Legally? (Ship of Theseus, as @nprateem notes.) 8. Is a person who dies naturally but is resurrected against medical directives (as in the Iowa case) considered discharged? If so, or if no, on what legal basis? It's worth noting that the law is not a system that's consistent either externally (as with science or public opinion/sentiment), or internally. It is based somewhat on legislation, precedent, and gloss. But also on argument, persuasion, judicial temperment, and political and power relations. It kinda works, but is awfully creaky in parts.
- kwhitefoot 7y agoIf he is now alive then he has never been dead.