this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
75 points (82.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43907 readers
1213 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People have tried the argument when they were resuscitated. The courts have thrown it out, as the sentence is meant to be their entire lifetime regardless of medical interventions that may artificially extend it. If someone is capable of making the argument, they have not fulfilled their sentence. Also, I think generally if you can be brought back you were not actually dead, you were near death and would have died if not for intervention (one might say only mostly dead and not dead dead).
It would take very poorly written laws that somehow define life to only include a single period of an uninterrupted heartbeat to allow it to work.
If and when somebody is resurrected after three days, the courts might be forced to reconsider.
Nice reference, bro. That was the second movie I ever bought, on VHS.
Well said. If we ever have the medical advancement of bringing back three-day corpses, we can brainwash the criminals to be good people instead.