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. vkou · 1791045361 · focus · HN ↗

            It wasn't valid testimony or evidence, but it biases the jury.

            1. s1artibartfast · 1791045835 · focus · HN ↗

               The video was after the jury had rendered their decision.

               1. AlexeyBrin · 1791046202 · focus · HN ↗

                  The video was aired before the sentence was given if I understood correctly, so one could argue the judge may have been influenced one way or the other by the video.

                  1. s1artibartfast · 1791048809 · focus · HN ↗

                     The purpose of that phase is to influence the judge.

                     That's why you have the family of the deceased reading tearful letters, crayon drawings from children missing their parents, and other things of that nature introduced during pre sentencing impact statements.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.