Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'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.
I 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.
A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence
61–70 of 99 posts
Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence
#62if 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
Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence
#63Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence
#64Life sentence means life in prison. If he had gotten the death sentence, then maybe he has a argument.
Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence
#65I 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 p…
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.
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 :(
Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence
#66I 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 p…
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.
Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence
#67It’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.
Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
IANAL but I believe that "Act of God" has a specific legal meaning in normal contracts that has nothing to do with religious miracles.
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
Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The logic there is if the criminal appeals and gets a charge dropped due to a technicality or some other issue then they are still in jail. Not ideal but not without logic.
Of course that's a big hypothetical "if."
Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence
#70It’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.
Wouldn't that just be a separate case?