It’s a little weird that they get to speak for the dead like that
Comment on A Judge Accepted AI Video Testimony From a Dead Man
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 month agoReading 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.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 month ago
catloaf@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Hot take: victim impact statements shouldn’t be allowed. They are appeals to emotion.
booly@sh.itjust.works 1 month 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.
catloaf@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Sure, but that’s just vengeance.
booly@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Why do we punish based on consequences caused by the crime, then?
A drunk driver is punished much more severely if they hit and kill a person, than if they hit and hurt a person, than if they hit a tree, than if they don’t crash at all.
As long as we’re punishing people based on the actual impact of their crimes, then emotional impact should count.
joshchandra@midwest.social 1 month ago
I’m pretty sure @booly@sh.itjust.works was meaning the exact opposite, that it’s more about educating perpetrators than taking vengeance or merely dishing out old-fashioned justice on them.
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
So a murderer should get a different sentence if the victim had a family and wasn’t a homeless person on the street?
InputZero@lemmy.world 1 month ago
No, justice should be blind. However those hurt most from the guilty parties actions also deserve to have their voices heard in court. Hot take, victim impact statements should come after the sentence is delivered. Depending on a whole lot of stuff, which I am not smart enough to figure out. Lawyers and judges should probably do that. Perhaps it is in other countries VISs are?
futatorius@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
If I am a victim of crime but am too dignified to resort to histrionics, why should that lead to my attacker getting off more lightly?
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 month 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.
catloaf@lemm.ee 1 month 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.