195
Man speaks to killer from beyond the grave in Arizona courtroom through AI video
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
195 points (90.5% liked)
Not The Onion
16154 readers
1356 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So first of all I guess all that stuff in the video about forgiveness wasn't really a factor. I'm just fascinated who called for this? Like was it the prosecution? In what context? Was this part of their closing arguments? Did the defense not object? So many questions.
You have to wonder if this is not grounds for an appeal.
The judge was so moved by a call for forgiveness that he increased the recommended sentence... Or if that's not the case, that's some poor writing in the article
Legally speaking, this was a victim impact statement.
Convicted criminals have long had the common law right of allocution, where they can say anything they want directly to the judge before sentence is passed.
Starting a few decades ago, several states decided that the victims of crime should have a similar right to address the judge before sentencing. And so the victim impact statement was created.
It's not evidence, and it's not under oath, but it is allowed to influence the sentencing decision.
(Of course, victim impact statements are normally given by real victims).
Was written and created by the family... they are victims. they just wrote it in the context of the deceased.
Do you mean that the script was written by the family, and it was only "performed" by generative AI? That's very interesting, and not something I heard anywhere else.
From the article. Where Wales is his sister.
From a related article. https://www.azfamily.com/2025/05/06/chandler-road-rage-shooting-victim-speaks-using-artificial-intelligence/
The outrage in the comments about this is stupid. It's clear that this is an impact statement from the family... the "AI" used here was to just generate the image of him reading the impact statement that his sister wrote.
I too enjoy putting words into mouths of other people and call it a method of getting my own argument across.
Waaah cry more!
I added to the conversation by answering the question directly asked. Which someone who read the article would have known the answer for.
I'm sorry that reading comprehension is hard for you.
Acting like more than half of the comments on this post aren't arguing in bad faith and thinking that the AI generated everything wholesale (content and script included) just shows how delusional you all are.
Edit: The funny part is that mkwt, the person I replied to, updooted the post. meaning that they legitimately found that information useful since they went out of their way to updoot. So you, and the other 5 people who don't understand how to read, can pound sand.
Honestly, if I'm the defense, this has gotta be awesome, right? Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I have watched Boston Legal twice, so that's basically the same thing, and what I'm hearing is these people want to get up on the stand and show the jury a video which either:
A) to the particularly inattentive, shows the victim clearly alive, or
B) demonstrates that even video evidence can be completely fabricated from whole cloth, and the opposition is more than capable of doing so to serve their own interests
Barring the staggeringly unlikely event that the defendant goes full-on Perry Mason Perp and outright says "hey, sorry I killed you, man" to the hologram, this seems like a pretty sweet deal.
It's a victim impact statement. It's not evidence. Victim Impact Statements are provided/read/whatever AFTER the finding of guilt, but before sentencing.