The video was created by the sister of the victim based on what she imagined he would say.
The video asked for leniency. But the family of the victim formally asked for the maximum sentence. So there is a conflict here between the video made by the family and what the family asked for - I don't understand why the video was made at all.
The maximum sentence to the accused was handed down, against the wishes of the AI video.
So they are throwing out the maximum sentence based on the AI video asking for leniency?
Regardless of this mess, AI videos of victims saying made up things should not be allowed at all.
> So they are throwing out the maximum sentence based on the AI video asking for leniency?
It says:
> In sum, while the embedded “real” video footage of the victim was permissible, allowing the presentation of the AI video constituted fundamental error. And on this record, the judge’s consideration of the AI video so prejudiced Horcasitas as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence for manslaughter and remand for resentencing.
Which is more or less; "AI videos of victims saying made up things should not be allowed at all.".
How was this even allowed by the judge? I wonder, if AI videos weren't a thing yet, would the judge allow one of the parties to bring in an actor dressed up and made up to look like the victim to offer testimony?
Right. All of that makes sense, but you didn't address the directionality: the direction of the AI sentence was "make sentence more lenient", and (according to the person you are replying to) the sentence was the maximum sentence possible. So if we removed the influence of the AI video, the sentence can not increase from what is already the maximum.
You assume the intent of the video was to be listened to and accepted as actual input.
My assumption is roughly the opposite - the intent of the video was to prejudice the jury as far as possible against the accused (he killed a person honorable enough and empathetic enough to suggest a more lenient sentence! To the pit with him!)
It wasn't about the content of the video - it was about the emotional response to an AI generated facsimile of the victim.
Perhaps the prejudice is that the AI video is a means of manipulation making the victim appear more sympathetic. "This person must be an absolute monster to shoot such a good, kind forgiving guy." That was exceptionally poor judgement on the part of the judge.
-Edit: Exactly what the comment above said.
Why can't the sentence increase? Maybe the judge was so touched by this video that he gave more weight to the family's request for a harsh sentence. Maybe it just enraged him to see the grieving family affected like this. You're applying frictionless-sphere physics to complicated human thoughts.
So basically it's that they believe the AI video was so off-putting that it sabotaged its own case in the judge's eyes? And that the case for leniency is stronger without the AI video so let the trial run again so the case can be heard without the AI video??
I suspect the sister did not anticipate the implications of the video. She might have initially created it for herself as a kind of therapy to help her cope, then thought it might help the families case if she showed it. I am just speculating though.
Except her lawyer was there to explain court procedure and implications.
In vigorously advocating for her client, who expressed a desire for maximum sentencing, the laywer presumably would have explained its pikely effect (biasing the judge).
Makes the victim more real (to the judge), I guess. And the family are victims too, the ones who continue to suffer, so I guess the 4D chess is demonstrating what the victims lost.
It eventually makes sense to my brain, aside from the AI part of course. If I'm a remarkably forgiving person my family might both appreciate that about me, and not be remarkably forgiving themselves. And they might say look, we lost this remarkable human being, punish the responsible party harshly.
> The attorney thinks the best way to get the maximum sentence is to make an AI video of the victim asking for leniency in sentencing?
Ab-so-fucking-lutely. This paints the victim in the most positive light. And makes killing them seem even worse.
Again, attorneys understand that a lot of times you're looking for an emotional hook, not straight up "facts". This video made the victim seem moral, empathetic, full of forgiveness... as close to freaking jesus as you can get.
And that other person killed them.
Now go sentence that person.
---
Instead imagine the video was of the victim smoking a cigar, laughing, and suggesting that he'd never forgive him and he should be put to death?
---
Which video makes the jury more likely to actually come back with a tougher sentence? The one where he's a bastard, or the one where he's a saint?
I read the article but I'm more mystified than when I read the headline. To recap:
A man is killed in a road-rage incident.
The killer gets the maximum sentence for manslaughter (10.5 years).
The appeals court says the judge was influenced by an AI-generated video of the victim and sends the case back for re-sentencing. Fine, ok.
Where it gets weird: The video was made by the victim's sister. In the video, the victim says he believes in forgiveness. However, the family demanded the maximum sentence for the killer.
This strikes me as strange. If they wanted the maximum sentence why did they submit a video about forgiveness? Did I miss something?
I don't fully understand the details of the case, but if someone were to kill a family member of mine in a fit of road rage, I would be furious if the sentence was a paltry 10.5 years.
Victims or victims' families pleading for leniency always puzzled me. Where is your iron?
Not so much perplexing if they considered the AI rendition an accurate representation. It's somewhat quite internally consistent in its own illogical way
You mean: the family members personally wanted the maximum sentence, but they wanted the (dead) victim to be able to express that the victim wants leniency?
People are obsessed with granting forgiveness. Some people want to purposefully be victims just so they can forgive someone. Forgiving gives the illusion of control and a moral superiority that some people really crave. It is performative forgiveness. Conveniently, it is difficult to question someone's genuine intentions about forgiveness, and some people have discovered you can also not be the actual victim and still forgive someone for a crime against that victim.
In reality, there should be no forgiveness, only punishments doled out according to the severity of the crime, nothing more. Justice without passion.
Wait let me get this straight. A man is killed in a road rage shooting. His family shows up to sentencing with an AI video of the victim asking for leniency for the shooter. The judge says he loved the video, then gives out the max sentence anyway. Then a court of a appeals vacates the sentence on the grounds that the judge was biased by the video. Huh? Every single one these statements seems extremely illogical.
The whole thing is messed up.
The video was created by the sister of the victim based on what she imagined he would say.
The video asked for leniency. But the family of the victim formally asked for the maximum sentence. So there is a conflict here between the video made by the family and what the family asked for - I don't understand why the video was made at all.
The maximum sentence to the accused was handed down, against the wishes of the AI video.
So they are throwing out the maximum sentence based on the AI video asking for leniency?
Regardless of this mess, AI videos of victims saying made up things should not be allowed at all.
> So they are throwing out the maximum sentence based on the AI video asking for leniency?
It says:
> In sum, while the embedded “real” video footage of the victim was permissible, allowing the presentation of the AI video constituted fundamental error. And on this record, the judge’s consideration of the AI video so prejudiced Horcasitas as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence for manslaughter and remand for resentencing.
Which is more or less; "AI videos of victims saying made up things should not be allowed at all.".
How was this even allowed by the judge? I wonder, if AI videos weren't a thing yet, would the judge allow one of the parties to bring in an actor dressed up and made up to look like the victim to offer testimony?
Right. All of that makes sense, but you didn't address the directionality: the direction of the AI sentence was "make sentence more lenient", and (according to the person you are replying to) the sentence was the maximum sentence possible. So if we removed the influence of the AI video, the sentence can not increase from what is already the maximum.
You assume the intent of the video was to be listened to and accepted as actual input.
My assumption is roughly the opposite - the intent of the video was to prejudice the jury as far as possible against the accused (he killed a person honorable enough and empathetic enough to suggest a more lenient sentence! To the pit with him!)
It wasn't about the content of the video - it was about the emotional response to an AI generated facsimile of the victim.
[delayed]
Perhaps the prejudice is that the AI video is a means of manipulation making the victim appear more sympathetic. "This person must be an absolute monster to shoot such a good, kind forgiving guy." That was exceptionally poor judgement on the part of the judge. -Edit: Exactly what the comment above said.
from what I understand, there’s a high standard here, beyond “beyond reasonable doubt”, along the lines of “no appearance of impropriety”
Why can't the sentence increase? Maybe the judge was so touched by this video that he gave more weight to the family's request for a harsh sentence. Maybe it just enraged him to see the grieving family affected like this. You're applying frictionless-sphere physics to complicated human thoughts.
[delayed]
I don't think the killer was actually prejudiced by this at all, but I think it was done as a way to say this nonsense shouldn't be in court at all.
So basically it's that they believe the AI video was so off-putting that it sabotaged its own case in the judge's eyes? And that the case for leniency is stronger without the AI video so let the trial run again so the case can be heard without the AI video??
https://youtu.be/cMs-_8etNts?t=83
1:23 if you wanna watch it, it's uh... quite something.
And the judges reaction to the AI video in court: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr9b1_rintk
I suspect the sister did not anticipate the implications of the video. She might have initially created it for herself as a kind of therapy to help her cope, then thought it might help the families case if she showed it. I am just speculating though.
Except her lawyer was there to explain court procedure and implications.
In vigorously advocating for her client, who expressed a desire for maximum sentencing, the laywer presumably would have explained its pikely effect (biasing the judge).
>The video was created by the sister of the victim based on what she imagined he would say
you don't know this, she could have been working based on advice from their attorney as to "how to get the maximum sentence"
The attorney thinks the best way to get the maximum sentence is to make an AI video of the victim asking for leniency in sentencing?
What kind of 4D chess is this?
Makes the victim more real (to the judge), I guess. And the family are victims too, the ones who continue to suffer, so I guess the 4D chess is demonstrating what the victims lost.
It eventually makes sense to my brain, aside from the AI part of course. If I'm a remarkably forgiving person my family might both appreciate that about me, and not be remarkably forgiving themselves. And they might say look, we lost this remarkable human being, punish the responsible party harshly.
> The attorney thinks the best way to get the maximum sentence is to make an AI video of the victim asking for leniency in sentencing?
Ab-so-fucking-lutely. This paints the victim in the most positive light. And makes killing them seem even worse.
Again, attorneys understand that a lot of times you're looking for an emotional hook, not straight up "facts". This video made the victim seem moral, empathetic, full of forgiveness... as close to freaking jesus as you can get.
And that other person killed them.
Now go sentence that person.
---
Instead imagine the video was of the victim smoking a cigar, laughing, and suggesting that he'd never forgive him and he should be put to death?
---
Which video makes the jury more likely to actually come back with a tougher sentence? The one where he's a bastard, or the one where he's a saint?
Agree with your post, but judges sentence, not juries.
fair - I've lived in places where juries can recommend sentencing. You're right here.
Yeah. The people in these comments aren't following the story.
Wait till you hear about some of the "Day in the Life" videos that ambulance chasers use.
I read the article but I'm more mystified than when I read the headline. To recap:
A man is killed in a road-rage incident.
The killer gets the maximum sentence for manslaughter (10.5 years).
The appeals court says the judge was influenced by an AI-generated video of the victim and sends the case back for re-sentencing. Fine, ok.
Where it gets weird: The video was made by the victim's sister. In the video, the victim says he believes in forgiveness. However, the family demanded the maximum sentence for the killer.
This strikes me as strange. If they wanted the maximum sentence why did they submit a video about forgiveness? Did I miss something?
This whole thing is bizarre.
I don't fully understand the details of the case, but if someone were to kill a family member of mine in a fit of road rage, I would be furious if the sentence was a paltry 10.5 years.
Victims or victims' families pleading for leniency always puzzled me. Where is your iron?
Not so much perplexing if they considered the AI rendition an accurate representation. It's somewhat quite internally consistent in its own illogical way
Even if it's accurate it seems counter-productive to the objective, which is to get the maximum possible sentence.
FWIW for normal slights, I believe in forgiveness too. Deadly violence over a road-rage incident isn't one of them.
In any case this whole thing is a tragedy.
You mean: the family members personally wanted the maximum sentence, but they wanted the (dead) victim to be able to express that the victim wants leniency?
It doesn’t confuse me at all. But maybe that’s just because I come from a family where people disagree and try to undermine each other as sport
It doesn’t confuse me at all. But maybe that’s just because I come from a family where people disagree as sport
Yes exactly that - I parsed it as such.
People are obsessed with granting forgiveness. Some people want to purposefully be victims just so they can forgive someone. Forgiving gives the illusion of control and a moral superiority that some people really crave. It is performative forgiveness. Conveniently, it is difficult to question someone's genuine intentions about forgiveness, and some people have discovered you can also not be the actual victim and still forgive someone for a crime against that victim.
In reality, there should be no forgiveness, only punishments doled out according to the severity of the crime, nothing more. Justice without passion.
Your main takeaway from this tale should be that the quality of trial court judges varies widely.
> He added that he felt the video was “genuine, that his obvious forgiveness of Mr. Horcasitas reflects the character I heard about [Pelkey] today.”
It's an artificial video that is *literally and verifiably* not genuine.
If a judge says it is, then it must be. /s
Wait let me get this straight. A man is killed in a road rage shooting. His family shows up to sentencing with an AI video of the victim asking for leniency for the shooter. The judge says he loved the video, then gives out the max sentence anyway. Then a court of a appeals vacates the sentence on the grounds that the judge was biased by the video. Huh? Every single one these statements seems extremely illogical.
What part of this process would you expect to be logical? Everything except the last one is pretty clearly an emotional reaction.
AI makes even judges dumber.
Week old story OP;
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49944127
Well at least the deepfake asked for leniency and offered forgiveness.
Wake me up when it starts offering narratives, evidence and alibis.