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.
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?
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.
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.
