Comments on: Life Extension’s Impact on Inmates with Life Sentences http://www.callingjohngalt.com/2009/06/29/life-extensions-impact-on-inmates-with-life-sentences/ We have been trying to reach him for quite some time. Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:38:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: MDerosier http://www.callingjohngalt.com/2009/06/29/life-extensions-impact-on-inmates-with-life-sentences/comment-page-1/#comment-477 MDerosier Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:52:49 +0000 http://www.callingjohngalt.com/?p=712#comment-477 I've read that the theoretical maximum that a human lifespan can be extended to is 150 years. Don't remember the article or the theory behind it, but I believe it had something to do with the decay rate of telomeres in DNA. I doubt that our generation will see an increase in lifespan past 120 anyways, barring bold new advances in gene therapy. This idea would theoretically invalidate concerns about whether or not these "life" sentences will be served. Science out of the way, the moral implication of extended life as applied to these implied life sentences is really the issue at hand. I would argue that a sentence of over 75 years would be such a massive punishment that it would be just as bad as a life sentence. My reasoning behind this is that incarcerating a criminal for such a long time - if ages of 150 are reached, 75 years would be half a lifetime - that the quality of the convicted person's remaining life would be severely diminished. If a person misses out on half their life, only regaining freedom in the later part of their life... I couldn't imagine what that would be like. By the time they regain their freedom, they are likely to be physically incapable of much due to old age. That said, if we account for the possibility that old age is also eliminated from the equation, it would seem that sentencing would need to be changed to reflect the new quality of life. It would be only fair that criminals with termed "life" sentences would have to be released at the end of their term, and hopefully a 150 year jail sentence would be enough to convince them that they should never do what they did wrong again. Failing that, however, they would find themselves subject to the new realities of the law. I hope I got my point across in a way that makes sense. For all I know I could've written gibberish. It is rather late, and I am rather tired. I’ve read that the theoretical maximum that a human lifespan can be extended to is 150 years. Don’t remember the article or the theory behind it, but I believe it had something to do with the decay rate of telomeres in DNA. I doubt that our generation will see an increase in lifespan past 120 anyways, barring bold new advances in gene therapy. This idea would theoretically invalidate concerns about whether or not these “life” sentences will be served.

Science out of the way, the moral implication of extended life as applied to these implied life sentences is really the issue at hand. I would argue that a sentence of over 75 years would be such a massive punishment that it would be just as bad as a life sentence. My reasoning behind this is that incarcerating a criminal for such a long time – if ages of 150 are reached, 75 years would be half a lifetime – that the quality of the convicted person’s remaining life would be severely diminished. If a person misses out on half their life, only regaining freedom in the later part of their life… I couldn’t imagine what that would be like. By the time they regain their freedom, they are likely to be physically incapable of much due to old age.

That said, if we account for the possibility that old age is also eliminated from the equation, it would seem that sentencing would need to be changed to reflect the new quality of life. It would be only fair that criminals with termed “life” sentences would have to be released at the end of their term, and hopefully a 150 year jail sentence would be enough to convince them that they should never do what they did wrong again. Failing that, however, they would find themselves subject to the new realities of the law.

I hope I got my point across in a way that makes sense. For all I know I could’ve written gibberish. It is rather late, and I am rather tired.

]]>