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. AlexeyBrin · 1791044680 · focus · HN ↗

      I doesn't matter what the AI model said, it was not real. The "victim" was dead and it could not forgive anyone. This "testimony" should not have been allowed in court.

      1. s1artibartfast · 1791044988 · focus · HN ↗

         But it wasnt testimony or evidence tho?

         1. AlexeyBrin · 1791045289 · focus · HN ↗

            The issue with presenting a fictional video is that it can influence in a way or another the final decision and it can also create a precedent.

            If someone wants to watch fiction, it can do it in a more appropriate place and not in a court of law.

            1. s1artibartfast · 1791046334 · focus · HN ↗

               So in this particular case, a family member shared it during post-sentencing impact statements. This is after the jury has rendered their decision, and it is up to the judge to decide how severe the sentence should be.

               Family can read fictional poems, personal thoughts, videos or photo montages. They can put up a picture of the deceased, and make statements like if "Bob was here, he would say x, y, and z"

               The point is to influence the sentence.

               Provided that the family was very clear this was not historic video, and I think it was, then one can see how this isn't obviously out of bounds

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.