Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 99 posts

Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence

#81

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

GavinMcG wrote: post #61
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why 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?

You’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.

Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence

#82

Post by greggyb »

aaomidi wrote: post #65
sandworm101 wrote: post #59

Earlier 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.

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 any…

I'm not trying to pull a "gotcha!" or oversimplify your position or anything else devious. I am honestly curious about your answer to this question, given your position above:

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.

Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence

#83

Post by aaomidi »

greggyb wrote: post #82
aaomidi wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 any…

I'm not trying to pull a "gotcha!" or oversimplify your position or anything else devious. I am honestly curious about your answer to this question, given your position above: 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 t…

Oh I'm not for killing anyone. Heck I have a problem with a LOT of our system. I'm just saying if I knew I was guilty I would like to have the option to die.

I'm very against state enforced killing.

Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence

#84

Post by dang »

jaffau wrote: post #80
aaomidi wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 any…

Beware the downvoting theists...

Could you please not post flamebait to HN or take threads further into flamewar? We're hoping to avoid that here.

(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.)

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence

#85

Post by GavinMcG »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #81
GavinMcG wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why 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?

You’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 pris…

> 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.

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.

Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence

#86

Post by tptacek »

bleh123 wrote: post #2

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 pre…

The word "God" doesn't appear in the US Constitution, which also doesn't make mention of any "superior force".

People whose hearts stop on an operating room table and are subsequently resuscitated aren't issued death certificates.

Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence

#87

Post by chriselles »

aaomidi wrote: post #65
sandworm101 wrote: post #59

Earlier 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.

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 any…

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?

Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence

#88

Post by cbnotfromthere »

aaomidi wrote: post #83
greggyb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to pull a "gotcha!" or oversimplify your position or anything else devious. I am honestly curious about your answer to this question, given your position above: 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 t…

Oh I'm not for killing anyone. Heck I have a problem with a LOT of our system. I'm just saying if I knew I was guilty I would like to have the option to die. I'm very against state enforced killing.

I'm just saying if I knew I was guilty I would like to have the option to die.

Nobody could stop you from suiciding. In other words, such option is ALWAYS on the table.

Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence

#89

Post by javagram »

chriselles wrote: post #87
aaomidi wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 any…

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?

The person already suggested an alternative: execution.

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)

Re: A Prisoner Who Briefly Died Argues That He’s Served His Life Sentence

#90

Post by 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.

Post reply on HN