SHOULD PRISONERS SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE BE ALLOWED TO CHOOSE TO DIE AT THE HANDS OF THE STATE?

Life without possibility of parole (LWOP) or, as it's known in Idaho, Fixed Life, means that the person so sentenced will spend the rest of his/her natural life in prison barring some finding that would vacate or alter their sentence [or conviction]. Ironically, it is more likely that a prisoner sentenced to death will be released than a prisoner with LWOP.

In some states, a life sentence is equated to a number of years. For example, in the state of Delaware, a prisoner sentenced to life will have satisfied that sentence after having served between 15 and 45 years. Other states, like Idaho, mandate that the LWOP prisoner literally die in prison [FN1], whether that takes days, months or decades of languishing in what would be - in any civilized world - considered torturous conditions.

It is indisputable then that a fixed life sentence in Idaho equates to a sentence of death while in the custody of the Board of Corrections, so why not allow prisoners with no hope of ever being released to choose to have their ultimate sentence carried out in the same way prisoners sentenced to other forms of death in Idaho [lethal injection or firing squad] are allowed to do?

Would not this model of 'justice' be in the best interest of the prisoner, families of victims and the public as a whole? Indeed, it would seem that while lethal injection and firing squad might hold up under constitutional scrutiny, death by a thousand cuts (as LWOP is often described) may not.

Since both [death and LWOP] sentences have the same intended effect, with one method being quick and 'clean', the other intentionally drawn out and made more torturous every day, why then would LWOP prisoners be prohibited from reaping the same benefits where, in theory, those sentenced to be executed have committed crimes more heinous or severe than those sentenced to fixed life?

Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on torture (1984), to which the United States is a signatory, defines torture as:

"... [a]ny act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE PAIN OR SUFFERING ARISING ONLY FROM, INHERENT IN, OR INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL SANCTIONS". [EMPHASIS ADDED].

Although the 'legal' definition of torture does not include the intentional infliction of pain and suffering inherent in, incidental to or inherent in prolonged incarceration without hope of release, the acts themselves are still [in fact] torture and cause the same injuries (physical, mental and emotional) whether they are 'authorized' or not. Indeed, ask the person with an ice pick stuck in his eye whether it hurts less because LEGALLY, people can stick him with it because a judge, with personal, political and/or other agenda says they can.

I'm not opining that all prisoners with LWOP sentences should be intentionally put to death immediately by the state. Rather, prisoners who have no options for appeal of their sentences/convictions due to procedural rules or have waived further appeals should be given the option of having their [de facto] sentences of death carried out expeditiously in the interest of humane treatment.

If LWOP sentenced prisoners were granted the opportunity to have their sentences carried out in a relatively quick manner, maybe the publics' mistaken perception that the death penalty is the harsher of the two sentences would be brought into the light of reality.

______________
[FN] The cardiopulmonary definition of death, which is the reigning common law standard for determining death, is defined as the irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions. This cardiopulmonary definition of death was included in the uniform determination of death act, a model law that was adopted by numerous medical and ethics organizations, including the national conference of commissioners on uniform state laws, the American medical association, and almost all states in the United States. SOURCE: Idaho Code §18-8802(2) [Legislative Findings and Intent].

_____________________

Author Dale Shackelford spent a decade on Idaho's Death Row, having been convicted of 2 counts of premeditated murder. Because the jury did not find a statutory aggravator which would allow the death sentences to stand, he was resentenced to 2 consecutive fixed life sentences. Shackelford refused to allow his trial counsel to present mitigation evidence at sentencing, stating he desired to be put to death rather than spending decades in perpetual confinement. He has been in general population at the Idaho State Correctional Center since November, 2011.