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.
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 :(
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.
Ridiculous logic games like this are a pretty good reason why excessive legalese is mocked in mainstream culture - because it is totally disconnected from reality and enthralled with their own existence.
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...
Judgement sidestepped this by saying there was no ruling in lower court so we can't rule on it, I think.
- Miracle Max
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.
It seems to me if/when that happens, a life sentence should be considered cruel and unusual.
What are you going to do about the incorrigably unlawful / evil?
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
To compensate for what was perceived to be an overly sympathetic appeals system.
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.
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.
To be pedantic, you've almost certainly signed valid legal contracts that reference "Act of God" verbatim.
"Dead" is a word that's pretty well-defined for most of human history. If you're dead, you can't come back. If you do come back, barring supernatural intervention, you weren't dead. It's pretty simple.
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?
Just having your heart stop is not "death" and hasn't been for a very long time. That definition only hangs around these days colloquially for people to enhance the drama of their medical stories.
Oh, and off topic, but the US Constitution does not actually mention anything about God given rights. That's the Declaration of Independence. In fact, the Constitution does not really address the rights of the people at all so much as the limitations of the government. The bill of rights does mention some of the rights of the people, but only in directing the government to specifically not encroach upon them, and the 10th amendment was added to make it clear that the bill of rights does not in any way abridge any unmentioned natural rights.
The prisoner being alive would imply that he never actually died, at least not medically or legally.
[1] http://tiny.cc/mbzzfz [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_death
People whose hearts stop on an operating room table and are subsequently resuscitated aren't issued death certificates.
From the Articles of Confederation.
The present Constitution doesn't even have that much of reference, and that is by intention of the Framers.
No. It does not.
Go read it again.
If you are currently walking and talking then it is obvious that you have not died.
Alternatively, can a person have more than one life? Unless this is Mario Brothers, no.
This may change in the future with new technology but currently death is a permanent state not a temporary one.
That said, the concept of punishing attempted crimes is well established. After all, if one of the goals of having a criminal legal system is to prevent crime, we should punish those who attempt to commit crimes.
If someone fires a loaded gun at you, and you're lucky enough for them to miss, they should still be punished for the attempt to inflict harm on you or potentially kill you.
We can certainly debate whether the legal system should take more of a "no harm, no foul" kind of approach, but I hope the explanation above helps to clarify why our current legal system penalizes attempted and successful crimes.
There's still some role of autonomy here. Even as a prisoner he is allowed to determine what he may read, may do (within restriction), when he goes to the bathroom. Saying "No, you have no right to determine what medical treatment you do or do not receive", to me, undermines a civilized society, even for the incarcerated.
"Sorry you were diagnosed with amazingly painful metastasizing bone cancer. If you should go into cardiac arrest, be advised, though, we will not let you pass - we are going to work to keep you alive. This may result in brain damage to you. But so be it. It may result in long, expensive and painful procedures for the rest of your life. But so be it".
Note that this is different to, say, hunger strikes and force feeding, but instead about medical conditions.
Should they keep him on life support for fifty plus years, in theory, just so he can "serve out his life sentence" to the satisfaction of the state, for example?
From a medical provider's perspective, and similarly, someone with custody over another, ignoring and actively violating their medical treatment wishes (in my state, the POLST form - Physician's Orders for Life Sustaining Treatments, which has replaced and expanded upon DNRs) is just as much assault and battery as anything else, and may also be considered negligent and malpractice.
Didn't they fail that when simple kidney stones evolved to a life threatening condition?
I'm not doctor, and I don't know the case, but it wouldn't be first time a "correctional" facility violated this duty.
It's not a far fetch argument to suggest that incarceration in US prisons is cruel -- I'm suspect history will look back at us with horror.
Of course that's a big hypothetical "if."
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-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/
on edit: reference article for bad American prison food https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/ezq59z/what-its-like-to-e...
Long detailed version for anyone who is interested in the etymology of the phrase.
"Act of God" is a traditional term used in contract law that has existed for millennia, dating back to Roman law. Romans originally used the term 'vim maiorem' in Latin which meant "Superior Force". Contracts using this term exist as far back as 509BC. 'Vim maiorem' became standard contract terms in most Roman contracts found from this period. It released a person from liability based on actions that were unpreventable or unforseeable.
As ancient Rome fell, Italy began to disperse and adopted the same term 'vim maiorem' into the Italian language. This well-understood concept and term enabled contracts to be made among dispersed Italian villages. The tradition of this latin phrase stayed alive in italy for another thousand years until the renaissance.
During the renaissance, the French were looking to rebuild a great society like the Romans and determined that law was a critical part of the culture. Contracts became commonplace again, and the French were inspired by the contracts written between these Italian cities. They found the 'vim maiorem' term helpful is absolving liability for unforeseeable circumstances. They translated the term to "force majeure". This literally translates into 'the greatest force'.
Again... no spiritual component.
The tradition later expanded into England in the 16th century. While the English didn't like the French, they did like the concept of "Force Majeure". But they didn't want to use a French term. So they originally adopted the term 'vis maior' in contractual law, which was an alternate latin term used along with 'vim maiorem' which translated closer to "major acts'.
Thomas Wilson is the English man who translated "vis maior" into the English term "Act of God". He felt that "the Italianated [words] counterfeited the great Kinges Englishe" [sic]. As a respected judge, he sought to find an appropriate English translation that gave respect to the King instead of giving credit to the French or Italians. As Thomas Wilson was a Christian who was heavily engaged in the Christianity revolution in medieval England at the time, he coined the term "Act of God" to replace "vis maior".
This is the first time that this traditional phrase carried any religious weight. But that relgious weight was quickly dispelled by future court rulings.
> "Judges continued [throughout the 17th century] to rule that in law, an act of God did not depend on divine influence, including violent storms at sea, unprecedented rainfall, extraordinary floods, earthquakes, and death. In 1609, a British court ruled that a fire caused by lightning was an act of God. In 1785 a court ruled that a fire NOT caused by lightning was NOT an act of God. In 1886, England's Lord Esher ruled, 'In the older, simpler days I have myself never had any doubt but that the phrase does not mean act of God in the ecclesiastical and biblical sense... but that in a mercantile sense'. By the 1800s, the courts routinely rejected claims that God was responsible for human negligence.[1]"
At this same time, contracts were being passed from England to the newly formed USA. Most of the founding fathers were lawyers by trade and "Act of God" quickly spread as a legal term in the US.
"Act of God" is defined as "any accident, due directly and exclusively to natural causes without human intervention, which could not be prevented."
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380373/?page=4
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.
The judge is describing the existing, well-established law in a slightly jokey manner.
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.
What do you think about cases where the accused is found not guilty after some long period of time (longer than your five years, or any other threshold we might negotiate)? There are certainly cases where accused have been released after such time spans. There are also cases of accused being pardoned or having their sentences commuted after this period of time. These people would be denied that chance if they were killed instead.
I'm very against state enforced killing.
If so, can you please elaborate?
What alternatives do you suggest as sufficient deterrence to and effective punishment for the crimes of murder, rape, and felony assault?
Can we help these criminals before they become criminals essentially?
And I wasn't saying we should get rid of prison, rather allow the person to choose death if they wish.
I'd also like to see if we can actually slowly introduce them back to society, slowly give more freedoms back or help them take jobs that gives their life meaning.
It's a hard problem and we definitely don't have the correct solution right now.
That’s what human societies did for those crimes for thousands of years after all. The replacement of execution with prison is relatively modern, pre-industrial societies couldn’t afford to run prisons and punished using capital punishment, slavery, or exile instead.
(Of course we did switch for a reason, prison was thought to be more humane than the above)
(Also, if you read them to the end, you'll find that the site guidelines you not to go on about downvotes in comments. Downvotes can be annoying but the posts about them are boring and do no good.)
Which is why the same law also says that "In the event that artificial means of support preclude a determination that [spontaneous respiratory and circulatory] functions have ceased, a person will be considered dead if in the announced opinion of two physicians, based on ordinary standards of medical practice, that person has experienced an irreversible cessation of spontaneous brain functions."
I mean, seriously, just Google "Iowa death definition" and you can find all this. There is no loophole whereby the judge gets to just go with his gut.
> 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.
It's not the legal basis. It's, like you said, a snappy line of rhetoric. In the written decision/order the judge will refer to the statute and to the uncontested fact that the man's lack of respiratory and circulatory functioning was reversed.
> 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.
No, it doesn't. A judge's snappy rhetoric doesn't make new law. You're tilting at windmills here.