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!
Posts must be:
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!
Why would a judge allow this? It's like showing the jury a made-for-TV movie based on the trial they're hearing.
Not only did he allow it,
While the state asked for a nine-and-a-half year sentence, the judge handed Horcasitas a 10-and-a-half year sentence after being so moved by the video, Pelkey’s family said, noting the judge even referred to the video in his statement.
It has about as much evidentiary value as a ouija board, but since the victim was a veteran and involved with a church and the judge likes those things we can ignore pesky little things like standards of proof and prejudice
Fucking yikes that judge needs to be removed
Twist: the judge used AI to write his sentencing statement. It's chat bots all the way down.
Seems like grounds for a mistrial...
On the other hand I do like that some road rage dipshit got a long sentence
Arizona State professor of law Gary Marchant said the use of AI has become more common in courts.
“If you look at the facts of this case, I would say that the value of it overweighed the prejudicial effect, but if you look at other cases, you could imagine where they would be very prejudicial,” he told AZFamily.
Could you imagine how prejudicial such a thing might be? Not here, of course. /S
Jury duty would be a lot more fun if trials were narrated by the Unsolved Mysteries guy
The trial was already over. This was for the sentencing.
So the original comment is just dumb because they couldn't be bothered to read the article, but upvotes it gets.
WTF?
That man did not say anything. A computer algorithm smashed a video together they incidentally uses his likeness, nothing more
The fuck is wrong with people.
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this
There is absolutely zero chance I would allow anyone to theorize what they think I would say using AI. Hell, I don’t like AI in its current state, and that’s the least of my issues with this.
It’s immoral. Regardless of your relation to a person, you shouldn’t be acting like you know what they would say, let alone using that to sway a decision in a courtroom. Unless he specifically wrote something down and it was then recited using the AI, this is absolutely wrong.
It’s selfish. They used his likeness to make an apology they had no possible way of knowing, and they did it to make themselves feel better. They couldve wrote a letter with their own voices instead of turning this into some weird dystopian spectacle.
“It’s just an impact statement.”
Welcome to the slippery slope, folks. We allow use of AI into courtrooms, and not even for something cool (like quickly producing a 3d animation of a car accident for use in explaining—with actual human voices—what happened at the scene). Instead, we use it to sway a judge’s sentencing, while also making an apology on behalf of a dead person (using whatever tech you want because that is not the main problem here) without their consent or even any of their written (you know, like in a will) thoughts.
Pointing to “AI bad” for these arguments is lazy, reductive, and not even remotely the main gripe.
allow use of AI into courtrooms
Surprised the judge didn't kick that shit to the curb. There was one case where the defendant made an AI avatar, with AI generated text, to represent himself and the judge said, "Fuck outta here with that nonsense."
There is absolutely zero chance I would allow anyone to theorize what they think I would say using AI.
If they based it on my Reddit history it's got potential to be needlessly harsh to certain groups of life-underachievers, that's for sure.
Ok, so his family believed he would forgive, wrote statement for him and made AI make it look like the victim said it. And this is somehow relevant to the court? It's all nice the family thinks this but what has it got with justice?
But, the Judge, Todd Lang, loved that AI. It was well received. Go figure.
We're living in a parallel universe now.
The future distopia is now.
It's all computer!
Fucking disgusting
I'd rather have somebody puppet my corpse like in Weekend at Bernie's. Basically the same thing but more authentic
This is some Weekend at Bernie's 2 shit.
Unless stated otherwise, please do not use my likeness for legal proceedings on the event of my untimely passing. Please.
It's too late. There's like fifty Tetris games.
damn
I swear to Christ, if I get murdered and my family makes an AI video of me forgiving them then I will haunt the shit out of them.
Who will you haunt? The murderer or your family?
Huh. Everybody I guess?
An AI version of Christopher Pelkey appeared in an eerily realistic video to forgive his killer... "In another life, we probably could’ve been friends. I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives."
The message was well-received by Judge Todd Lang, who told the courtroom, “I love that AI."
While the state asked for a nine-and-a-half year sentence, the judge handed Horcasitas a 10-and-a-half year sentence after being so moved by the video.
Society is on the verge of total collapse
EDIT: I am reading this over multiple times, and I think the judge is being sarcastic
Frankly any society that embraces this sort of thing should collapse, because the alternative is too disturbing.
How does that even make sense?
Wouldn't you lower the sentence if the victim AI says it forgives the killer? Because - you know - it significantly reduces the "revenge" angle the American justice system is based on?
This is awesome. Next we can have AI Jesus endorsing Trump, AI Nicole Simpson telling us who the real killer was, and AI Abraham Lincoln saying that whole Civil War thing was a big misunderstanding and the Confederacy was actually just fine. The possibilities are endless. I can hardly wait!
Eww, that's such a ghoulish thing to do; letting a distortion of a dead person, that could never act as the deceased person, forgive their killer. Do they even know if he would've done this if he had a say before being killed?
This is some Black Mirror level shit.
Why even do an impact statement? All Christian victims should be assumed to forgive their attackers, right?
While the state asked for a nine-and-a-half year sentence, the judge handed Horcasitas a 10-and-a-half year sentence after being so moved by the video, Pelkey’s family said, noting the judge even referred to the video in his statement
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).
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.
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
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.
An AI version of Christopher Pelkey appeared in an eerily realistic video to forgive his killer… “In another life, we probably could’ve been friends. I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives.”
"...and while it took my murder to get my wings as an angel in heaven, you still on Earth can get close with Red Bull ™. Red Bull ™ gives you wings!" /s
This headline lies.
Jesus Christ. Nah. There needs to be some kind of AI awareness training. This is beyond dumb.