I don’t think the headline represents a practical or addressable question.
US prisoner Gregory Aaron Gadlin (incarcerated for 16 counts of robbery and being a felon in possession of a weapon) who began his 967 year prison sentence in 2013 could actually serve his full term. [...]
But if he duly serves the time he owes, we can’t arbitrarily change the law to prevent his release, right?
No government or legal system has ever maintained enough continuity to keep doing anything, including keeping any particular person in prison, for 967 years. And even if you technically have continuity in the institutions, before 2980, values and politics will probably have changed many times. The laws will change in all kinds of ways for reasons unrelated to any particular case, and so will the general conditions.
Depending on which ways things swing and in what order, I expect that, long before 2980, this guy will have--
been released;
been “cured” and released;
been executed;
been released, been retroactively de-released, and been released again;
gotten paperclipped along with everybody else;
transcended into a posthuman form and evolved to have completely different personality and motivations;
escaped, changed his name, moved to Fiji, gotten arrested for sodomy, and been sentenced to 3742 years for that; or
The posts asks the addressable question of: what should we do about prisoner healthcare?
Ignoring the 967 years scenario (as that’s more of a hypothetical to conjure more abstract or philosophical thoughts in the reader), there’s still the issue of should longevity medicine be given to prisoners or not?
If yes:
Then the government is extending a prisoner’s incarceration (and suffering) for even longer if the prisoner is not set for release within hundreds of years, which seems cruel.
If no:
Then the government is condemning them to a premature death when the rest of us are living longer.
^Both of these options are suboptimal. The best case scenario is that we ignore them and find a third alternative: a rehabilitation-based approach to prison (versus the current confinement-based punishment).
I don’t think the headline represents a practical or addressable question.
No government or legal system has ever maintained enough continuity to keep doing anything, including keeping any particular person in prison, for 967 years. And even if you technically have continuity in the institutions, before 2980, values and politics will probably have changed many times. The laws will change in all kinds of ways for reasons unrelated to any particular case, and so will the general conditions.
Depending on which ways things swing and in what order, I expect that, long before 2980, this guy will have--
been released;
been “cured” and released;
been executed;
been released, been retroactively de-released, and been released again;
gotten paperclipped along with everybody else;
transcended into a posthuman form and evolved to have completely different personality and motivations;
escaped, changed his name, moved to Fiji, gotten arrested for sodomy, and been sentenced to 3742 years for that; or
something else that will make the question moot.
The posts asks the addressable question of: what should we do about prisoner healthcare?
Ignoring the 967 years scenario (as that’s more of a hypothetical to conjure more abstract or philosophical thoughts in the reader), there’s still the issue of should longevity medicine be given to prisoners or not?
If yes:
Then the government is extending a prisoner’s incarceration (and suffering) for even longer if the prisoner is not set for release within hundreds of years, which seems cruel.
If no:
Then the government is condemning them to a premature death when the rest of us are living longer.
^Both of these options are suboptimal. The best case scenario is that we ignore them and find a third alternative: a rehabilitation-based approach to prison (versus the current confinement-based punishment).