(TMU) — Benjamin Schreiber is serving a life sentence in an Iowa prison for murder, but is attempting to file an appeal for his release, arguing that he has already served his life sentence, despite spending less than 25 years behind bars thus far.
Schreiber has a very interesting—and possibly unprecedented—argument. In 2015, nearly two decades into his sentence, Schreiber temporarily died and was brought back to life during a bout of severe septic poisoning. Since he was technically dead for a short period of time before he was revived, Schreiber is arguing that he completed his life sentence.
Unfortunately for him, this week the Iowa Court of appeals ruled that the 66-year-old convicted murderer needs to stay in prison until he dies for good in order to fulfill his sentence.
In the ruling, Judge Amanda Potterfield attempted to be as clear as possible about the terms of the sentence.
“Schreiber is either alive, in which case he must remain in prison, or he is dead, in which case this appeal is moot,” Potterfield wrote, according to Chron.
“We do not believe the legislature intended this provision to set criminal defendants free whenever medical procedures during their incarceration lead to their resuscitation by medical professionals,” Potterfield added.
Schreiber argued in his appeal that doctors working on behalf of the prison violated a “do not resuscitate” order by bringing him back to life, citing that as another reason why he deserved to be granted his freedom. However, it was ultimately Schreiber’s brother who gave the doctors permission to medicate him.
Schreiber is in prison for the murder of John Dale Terry, a man whom he clubbed to death with the wooden handle of a pickax. Schreiber was found guilty of first-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in 1997.
This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.
Since you’re here…
…We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you. Click here to support us