Philosophically (not legally), how should this fallacy be resolved? A convicted felon is sentenced to both life imprisonment for a drug related murder AND the death penalty for a separate act of terrorism. Should he be put to death or should the life imprisonment override the death penalty? In other words, if sentences cannot be concurrently served, should the more severe one be served first?
One small point needs attention. If a man is serving a life sentence and is put to death for a different crime, then his life ends and the life sentence has been completed.