Comment

Comment on A Judge Accepted AI Video Testimony From a Dead Man

0x0@lemmy.zip ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

Wtaf… regardless of how well he was known by his family, this is the glorified version of a video resumé created by someone else, not the actual person – so it should be accepted as that: someone else’s testimony.

It’s not even a Reynolds’ beta-level simulation.

Why the judge accepted is beyond me.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Apparently the video was presented after the verdict was already issued. This video had no impact on the actual outcome of the trial, and was more of just a closing statement.

So the judge didn’t approve this a testimony, but just found it emotionally touching.

source
ricecake@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Hearsay is allowed in sentencing statements, and Arizona allows those statements to be in a format of their choice.

It’s the phase of the process where the judge hears opinions on what he should sentence the culprit to, so none of it is evidence or treated as anything other than an emotive statement.

In this case, the sister made two statements: one in the form of a letter where she asked for the maximum sentence, and another in the form of this animation of her brother where she said that he wouldn’t want that and would ask for leniency.

It’s gross, but it’s not the miscarriage of justice that it seems like from first glance. It was accepted in the same way a poem titled “what my brother would say to you” would be.

source