Thread

1. dooglius · 1791043246 · focus · HN ↗

   I'm confused. The video was shared by the victim's family, and it has him forgive the killer, and the judge believed it, and the killer's legal team complained? Isn't it in their favor?

   1. happytoexplain · 1791043956 · focus · HN ↗

      I don't understand either. The article makes it sound like the sentence was lenient due to the "forgiveness" of the "victim", but that's never stated, so maybe the sentencing was not affected, and the defense is just using the video as an excuse for a retrial because they think they can get a better sentencing for some other, unrelated reason?

      Also, the judge says explicitly that it was AI? But that it was also "genuine"? Very hard to follow.

      1. hrunt · 1791045680 · focus · HN ↗

         The defendant is not getting a retrial. He is getting resentenced. His guilt wasn't challenged. I think the defendant's argument is that the lifelike AI avatar of the victim carried the emotional weight of actually being the victim, and since the statement was one of geniality and forgiveness that may not have actually represented the victim's true self. This prejudiced sentencing because it made it look like the defendant killed someone better than they may have been.

         The AI statement was effectively a statement from the victim's sister. She can get up on the stand and talk about how genial and forgiving her brother was herself, and it will likely result in a similar sentence. Then, that sentence will be based on actual testimony and not invented testimony.

         And to those questioning why the lawyer challenged the sentence, a defense attorney is going to look at any opportunity to argue for a lesser sentence as one worth taking. You may think this testimony yielded a "better" sentence for the defendant, but I'm sure the attorney thinks otherwise.

      2. tzs · 1791049128 · focus · HN ↗

         > The article makes it sound like the sentence was lenient due to the "forgiveness" of the "victim", but that's never stated

         The prosecutors asked for 9 years, the defense asked for 7 years, and the family asked for the maximum available which was 10.5 years. The judge went with 10.5 years.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.