Thread: Man dies but lives... did he serve his life sentence?

Originally Posted by Mr Person

Prisons tend not to give too much of a **** about mentally ill (whether it's a disease or brain damage as you mention) inmates. Something like 50% of inmates are, on average. I suppose if it were bad enough they'd just transfer the guy to a prison hospital, but they wouldn't let him go. I suppose he could beg the governor for some sort of compassionate commutation/pardon, but if it was that bad he'd still end up in a hospital of some sort.

You were talking about personal identity. You are still you after you're back to life. With amnesia or brain damage, you are no longer you. There's legal precedence of such thing, especially when a crime was committed in a drunken stupor.

Originally Posted by Mr Person

Prisons tend not to give too much of a **** about mentally ill (whether it's a disease or brain damage as you mention) inmates. Something like 50% of inmates are, on average. I suppose if it were bad enough they'd just transfer the guy to a prison hospital, but they wouldn't let him go. I suppose he could beg the governor for some sort of compassionate commutation/pardon, but if it was that bad he'd still end up in a hospital of some sort.

Well I mean, defense attorneys for 50% of prisoners claim they’re mentally Ill and professionals who diagnose that kind of thing are just paid prostitutes. If you want mental illness you can have it.

Originally Posted by AProudLefty

That's what I figured. But double jeopardy applies to the SAME crime. I.e. the same charge with the same victim, legally. The only way to charge her is to charge her with lesser crime.

It wouldn’t be the same crime.

It would involve the same victim, but it would’ve occured in different dates, under different circumstances, etc. Plus the first conviction would’ve been vacated anyway.

Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle

It wouldn’t be the same crime.

It would involve the same victim, but it would’ve occured in different dates, under different circumstances, etc. Plus the first conviction would’ve been vacated anyway.

Hmm. Good point about the conviction being vacated. But then again there's the problem of already SERVING the sentence.

Originally Posted by AProudLefty

Hmm. Good point about the conviction being vacated. But then again there's the problem of already SERVING the sentence.

Well no, she would’ve served the sentence for the vacated conviction.

A hypothetical subsequent conviction for murder of the same man, would’ve involved different motives, took place at a different time, by different means, it’s a substantially different matter.

There’s also the fact that when she is convicted it’s in the state of Washington whereas she finally kills him in New Orleans and since Louisiana is a separate sovereign then Washington they are not bound by Washington’s conviction for the purposes of double jeopardy. Plus it was defense of self and others and a clear justifiable homicide

Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle

Well no, she would’ve served the sentence for the vacated conviction.

A hypothetical subsequent conviction for murder of the same man, would’ve involved different motives, took place at a different time, by different means, it’s a substantially different matter.

There’s also the fact that when she is convicted it’s in the state of Washington whereas she finally kills him in New Orleans and since Louisiana is a separate sovereign then Washington they are not bound by Washington’s conviction for the purposes of double jeopardy. Plus it was defense of self and others and a clear justifiable homicide

But if she has served her sentence, why does she has to serve it again when she is once innocent? I forgot where in the Constitution it is mentioned but in general, once you're punished and served your sentence, you cannot continue to be punished with additional sentences.

Originally Posted by AProudLefty

But if she has served her sentence, why does she has to serve it again when she is once innocent? I forgot where in the Constitution it is mentioned but in general, once you're punished and served your sentence, you cannot continue to be punished with additional sentences.

Well no, the constitution does not say that, in fact the opposite is true.

For example when the sex offender registries were passed people who had already served their sentences were made to register, and when the lautenberg amendment (domestic violence offender gun ban) was passed it retroactively applied to all people previously convicted of domestic violence assault

Originally Posted by Mr Person

It's a silly argument that ignores the plain intent of laws imposing life sentences.

If you "die" but are brought back, you are once more alive. It's still the you that was sentenced.

Originally Posted by AProudLefty

And if, as a result, you got amnesia or some kind of brain damage, resulting in loss of identity and memories?

Originally Posted by Mr Person

Prisons tend not to give too much of a **** about mentally ill (whether it's a disease or brain damage as you mention) inmates. Something like 50% of inmates are, on average. I suppose if it were bad enough they'd just transfer the guy to a prison hospital, but they wouldn't let him go. I suppose he could beg the governor for some sort of compassionate commutation/pardon, but if it was that bad he'd still end up in a hospital of some sort.

Originally Posted by AProudLefty

You were talking about personal identity. You are still you after you're back to life. With amnesia or brain damage, you are no longer you. There's legal precedence of such thing, especially when a crime was committed in a drunken stupor.

Yes, I was initially talking about personal identity since the notion that someone who is alive arguing that they died (but are now not dead, quite obviously) so they served their sentence is an idiotic "hail Mary" argument. What they really mean is that their heart stopped but they were revived. But then you suggested that if it caused brain damage that wiped their memories - doesn't seem to be the case here - they should maybe be released.





Bolded: Such as....?

One can certainly argue at trial that one was so intoxicated one could not have formed the intent to premeditate murder, but that's a pretty limited defense. Many if not most if not all states do not allow voluntary intoxication to be a complete defense (meaning "acquit me if you find I got so drunk I could not form either specific or general intent).

There's also an insanity defense, and physical brain damage can certainly play a role of that.

But this is well after trial. I'm not aware of any mechanism to say "ok, well, I suffered brain damage and now I can't remember what I supposedly did, so let me go free."



I do criminal appeals and other post-conviction work, so I'm thinking about this in lawyer terms. I haven't had a client suffer brain damage of the sort you mention while in prison, so I haven't had occasion to go digging and find out the answer, but I also haven't heard of any mechanism where you get to ask for release because you suffered brain damage in jail. Hence I suggested it would probably be only a question of moving the person to a prison hospital type situation rather than keeping them in gen. pop, or perhaps some sort of commutation/pardon from the relevant executive.