Comment on A Judge Accepted AI Video Testimony From a Dead Man
themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 days agoVictim statements to the court are always emotionally manipulative. Depending on the state, the defense doesn’t even have the right to cross examine or challenge factual statements. It’s akin to playing a video of home movies of the deceased, and obviously the judge understands that it is a fictitious creation.
LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz 2 days ago
No, this is exactly why it shouldn’t be allowed. This isn’t akin to playing a video of home movies because this is a fake video of the victim. This is complete fiction and people thinking it’s the same thing is what makes it wrong.
themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It is like a home movie in that it is an attempt to humanize the victim. There is no evidence in a home movie, no relevant facts, just an idea of the person that’s gone. You’re right that one is a memory of something that happened while the other is a fabrication of something that might have happened, but they are both equally (ir)relevant and emotionally manipulative. Many jurisdictions do prohibit victim statements beyond a written or verbal testimony. Some countries and states require you to use a form and won’t admit statements that do not adhere to the form.