“Schreiber’s Box” 
No. It is the SAME life continued. It stopped for a moment, and while it was stopped i don’t think anyone would have any issue with him being outside the prison facility, but when it resumed so did his sentence.
It really isn’t complicated. There isn’t a flatliners jailbreak loophole. Same life continued, same sentence continued.
original or remake?
Obviously this would set a disturbing precedent, and influence a lot of others serving life sentences, if the judge agreed with the plaintiff here.
Just after they issued a ‘decease and exist’ letter.
It’s not really the same life, although it IS the same person. The difference is he now has died in prison already.
Can we agree that the man died while in prison? If they let him lie there on the slab, we would not be having this conversation. Because he was dead before they resuscitated him.
How did he NOT complete his sentence? He died in prison…
then the State revived him. To go through it again. Is this not cruel and unusual punishment? What I wonder about is whether his lawyers made that argument, which might have some merit, or did they make another one which was not persuasive.
I don’t want to explain biology and the number of micro-cescations that occure regularly, how long is a cessation required to be in order to qualify for your imagined partition? He didn’t get an entirely new life, he just resumed his own. one lifespan. not two.
This is still his life. We only get one. It is either him alive or it is not.
The sentence isn’t “Until death do us part” you are thinking of marriage. The sentence is clearly, remain in prison for remainder of lifespan (however long that may be and however many small gaps may occur).
well that is just silly. he isn’t getting another entire lifespan to live out in prison, if that wasn’t ridiculous that would be cruel. he is just continuing the remainder of his life in prison, he just got a little extra life added onto his lifespan.
Prisoners should be able to sign do not resuscitate contracts if they desire not to be resuscitated.
Wait, he wasn’t resuscitated into a baby? Darn, that’s lame. /s 
LOL. He was “reincarcerated”! 
Not just life sentences. Once you accept this, you’re changing the legal definition of dead. So suddenly, heirs may start demanding their share of an estate because someone went into cardiac arrest. Debts payable upon death will start being enforced – you won’t be left homeless due to medical bills, but because your property is now your “estate”, and eligible for seizure.
Precedent is a wedge. It almost always expands.
Yeah, there’s this weird misunderstanding that a heart stopping means “death.” It’s like we’re still stuck in the 19th century, before cardiopulmonary resuscitation. (Though for some reason no one says that when someone stops breathing.) It’s really weird to hear people talk about themselves or others having their heart stopped for a period of time and saying, “For [x amount of time], I was legally dead!” Which is completely the opposite of what “legally dead” means.
But the phrase “legally dead,” at least with regard to heart function, refers to a situation where the heart irreversibly stops working. If his heart briefly stopped beating, he was not “dead” in any sense - certainly not legally, and no doctor would have referred to him as “dead” at any point.
They’re the same, though. A briefly stopped heart isn’t medically considered death either. Previous to the 20th century, when they had no way to resuscitate, sure, but now, no. People, for reasons unknown, still talk about heart stoppage as “death,” but it isn’t, medically speaking (though some bad doctors may fall into that same trap out of non-medical habit, despite knowing better). Both medically and legally, death is a non-reversible thing.
If you stop breathing and require resuscitation, no one talks about you “dying.” This isn’t actually any different, but for some reason the heart has some mystic significance to a lot of people who are stuck in a 19th century, pre-resuscitation mindset. There are definitions of corporeal death that this satisfies in the same way that there are definitions of “bird” that elephants satisfy - i.e. wrong ones.
I totally agree. I was essentially floating the idea that even if there is a legal definition of death that is outside of a medical definition, then there has to be some process which must be followed after that legal declaration. And if his next of kin do not follow that process, then, therefore, the legal death was nullified. That’s all I was suggesting. A legal loophole to nullify his claim. Not a medical explanation.
Excellent try, I’d say. Worth a shot. Maybe he just needed a better lawyer.
Makes me think of snipers that can make their heart pause for a second as they take a shot. I suppose they can serve a life sentence in a few minutes and be home in time for dinner.
Just spitballing here, but wouldn’t also classify him as “The Iowa State Penitentiary’s Monster”?
I’m thinking that a natural consequence of this may be that the next time Mr. Schreiber suffers septic poisoning it could be his last.
FTFA
Judge Potterfield wrote in the ruling this week that because “life” is not defined by the state’s code
I wonder if this case will pop up as precedent in any pro/anti-abortion appeals.
Yeah I thought it was a nice try too.
In John Varley’s Eight Worlds universe, people can make backups of their mind and DNA, so if you die accidentally, you can be restored from backup.
Courts can sentence people to “death”, or “permanent death”, which means they really mean it and they are going to search for and destroy all your backups.
If you wanted to kill someone and had a axe, why would you use the handle?
A multitude of reasons
