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

• ricecake@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it’s entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn’t actually have grounds to deny it.
  No jury during that phase, so it’s just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions.

  It’s gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted.

  source

  • catloaf@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Hot take: victim impact statements shouldn’t be allowed. They are appeals to emotion.

    source

    • booly@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I’d argue that emotions are a legitimate factor to consider in sentencing.

      It’s a bit more obvious with living victims of non-homicide crimes, but the emotional impact of crime is itself a cost borne by society. A victim of a romance scam having trouble trusting again, a victim of a shooting having PTSD with episodes triggered by loud noises, a victim of sexual assault dealing with anxiety or depression after, etc.

      It’s a legitimate position to say that punishment shouldn’t be a goal of criminal sentencing (focusing instead of deterrence and rehabilitation), or that punishment should be some sort of goal based entirely on the criminal’s state of mind and not the factors out of their own control, but I’d disagree. The emotional aftermath of a crime is part of the crime, and although there’s some unpredictable variance involved, we already tolerate that in other contexts, like punishing a successful murder more than an attempted murder.

      source

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        So a murderer should get a different sentence if the victim had a family and wasn’t a homeless person on the street?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • catloaf@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Sure, but that’s just vengeance.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I feel like I could be persuaded either way, but I lean towards allowing them during sentencing.
      I don’t think “it’s an appeal to emotion” is a compelling argument in that context because it’s no longer about establishing truth like the trial is, but about determining punishment and restitution.

      Justice isn’t just about the offender or society, it’s also indelibly tied to the victim. Giving them a voice for how they, as the wronged party, would see justice served seems important for it’s role in providing justice, not just the rote application of law.

      Obviously you can’t just have the victim decide, but the judges entire job is to ensure fairness, often in the face of strong feelings and contentious circumstances.

      Legitimately interested to hear why your opinion is what it is in more detail.

      source

      • catloaf@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        In terms of restitution, sure, the victim should have input. But in cases like imprisonment, I don’t see why the victim should have input into the length of a sentence, for example. If the offender is a danger to the public, they should remain in prison until such time that they are not. Emotional appeals should not factor into that determination.

        source
  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    It’s a little weird that they get to speak for the dead like that

    source