In 1996, Benjamin Schreiber, 66, was handed a life sentence without parole, after being convicted for killing a man with the handle of an axe. However, following a high fever and multiple seizures, the prisoner briefly passed away in 2015, before being resuscitated against his will. As a result of this, Mr Schreiber believes that he has served his life sentence and should be released from prison. In a court case that was decided earlier this month, it was evident that the law isn’t as black and white as it may appear. As Judge Amanda Potterfield wrote for the court, “Schreiber is either still alive in which case he must remain in prison, or he is actually dead, in which case this appeal is moot.” The final decision was that Scheiber would not be released. In fact, Judge Potterfield even went as far as to explain, “We do not find this argument persuasive.” On a legal basis, it is a ruling which makes complete sense. The role of laws is to help ensure that those in society who have committed crimes are punished for their actions, as a pose to being let off the hook courtesy of a sly argument and loophole in the rulebook. As the enters a new decade which promises to bring about major technological developments, the judicial system and laws need to be reviewed and updated to prevent groundless arguments with no evidence reaching court.