
A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence - silkodyssey
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/prisoner-dies-life-sentence.html
======
greggyb
I 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
But 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
I 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 :(

~~~
chriselles
Do you believe that imprisonment is more disgusting that premeditated murder,
rape, felony assault?

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?

~~~
aaomidi
I think in the short term we're kinda fucked. But in the long term I would
like if we tried to make these crimes not happen. Find out why they're
happening.

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.

------
GavinMcG
Before 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.

------
oxymoran
It’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
Even 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.

~~~
GhettoMaestro
On what grounds? He is serving a life sentence. He is in the custody of the
correctional facility. They have every duty to keep him alive and healthy, up
to the point of him expiring naturally.

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.

~~~
FireBeyond
The correctional facility's role is to incarcerate him, restrict his freedoms.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there's a line that needs to be
drawn there, from my perspective as an emergency medical provider.

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.

------
nprateem
It 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)

------
slowenough
I 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.

------
phaedrus
I'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.

------
sokoloff
Perhaps 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
That would be awfully rough on their cell mates.

~~~
LyndsySimon
Put them together. In the “Hole”. Problem solved :)

~~~
Markoff
you still need to provide food and other services to prisoner, it would be
quite pricey and lot of wasted resources

------
tomohawk
It 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

------
dredmorbius
There 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.

------
kornork
At 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.

~~~
dredmorbius
Depends. Do immortals become more good / lawful, less good / lawful, or does
it vary?

What are you going to do about the incorrigably unlawful / evil?

------
kwhitefoot
If he is now alive then he has never been dead.

------
Markoff
if 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
>what's the purpose of multiple life sentences in US

To compensate for what was perceived to be an overly sympathetic appeals
system.

------
zw123456
This 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
Or just OD in heroin and wait for a guard to come administer narcan

------
harimau777
It 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.

~~~
amluto
re: your note 2, one might argue that secular laws have no particular business
considering whether something was an act of god or not, and that a person who
is alive at any given time is therefore, for legal purposes, considered to
have never died in the first place.

~~~
mLuby
> secular laws have no particular business considering whether something was
> an act of god or not

To be pedantic, you've almost certainly signed valid legal contracts that
reference "Act of God" verbatim.

~~~
rurp
IANAL but I believe that "Act of God" has a specific legal meaning in normal
contracts that has nothing to do with religious miracles.

~~~
jacurtis
tl;dr: the term "act of God" has been around for thousands of years.
Translated several times. It wasn't until only a couple hundred years ago that
the term "God" was ever introduced into the phrase. And even then, it was
decreed by Judges of the time that there is no religious backing to the
phrase.

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](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380373/?page=4)

------
jeffwass
Jon Snow used the same logic to get out of the Night’s Watch.

~~~
richmarr
Thanks a bunch.

~~~
foobarian
[https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/04/27/the-song-of-
so...](https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/04/27/the-song-of-something-
something)

------
bleh123
I'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.

~~~
kenjackson
Legal and medical definitions of death I’ve seen include the terms “permanent”
and/or “irreversible”.

The prisoner being alive would imply that he never actually died, at least not
medically or legally.

~~~
zozbot234
I don't think this is correct. People have been declared legally dead simply
due to being missing for a long time, and there's nothing "permanent" or
"irreversible" about being a missing person - sometimes they show up again.

~~~
MereInterest
There is a big difference between being dead and being declared dead. One is a
fact about the universe, and the other is a fact about what somebody said
about the universe. Seeing somebody who was dead and is now alive is cause to
start a religion. Seeing somebody who was declared dead and is now alive is
cause to doubt that initial declaration.

------
mrtweetyhack
Life sentence means life in prison. If he had gotten the death sentence, then
maybe he has a argument.

~~~
Markoff
but 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

------
cryptica
If the court finds that he is dead, the prison should follow standard
procedure and have the body buried or cremated immediately.

~~~
ropiwqefjnpoa
His 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...

