An AI avatar made to look and sound like the likeness of a man who was killed in a road rage incident addressed the court and the man who killed him: “To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, it is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances,” the AI avatar of Christopher Pelkey said. “In another life we probably could have been friends. I believe in forgiveness and a God who forgives. I still do.”
It was the first time the AI avatar of a victim—in this case, a dead man—has ever addressed a court, and it raises many questions about the use of this type of technology in future court proceedings.
The avatar was made by Pelkey’s sister, Stacey Wales. Wales tells 404 Media that her husband, Pelkey’s brother-in-law, recoiled when she told him about the idea. “He told me, ‘Stacey, you’re asking a lot.’”
This isn’t a message from the victim. This is a message from his sister using his image as a way to increase the impact of her statement in court.
This is a bad thing, this is manipulating the court with a false and confusing message.
If gasping at video of real events is grounds for a mistrial, then so is fabricated statements intended to emotionally manipulate the court. It’s ludicrous that this was allowed and honestly is grounds to disbar the judge. If he allows AI nonsense like this, then his courtroom can not be relied upon for fair trials.
The victim impact statement isn’t evidence in the trial. The trial has already wrapped up. The impact statement is part of sentencing, when the court is deciding what an acceptable punishment would be. The guilty verdict has already been made, so the rules surrounding things like acceptable evidence are much more lenient.
The reason she wasn’t allowed to make a scene during the trial is because the defense can argue that her outburst is tainting the jury. It’s something the jury is being forced to witness, which hasn’t gone through the proper evidence admission process. So if she makes a scene, the defense can say that the defendant isn’t being given a fair trial because inadmissible evidence was shown to the jury, and move for a mistrial.
It sounds harsh, but the prosecutor told her to be stoic because they wanted the best chance of nailing the guy. If she threw their case out the window by loudly crying in the back of the courtroom, that wouldn’t be justice.
This is just weird uninformed nonsense.
The reason that outbursts, like gasping or crying, can cause a mistrial is because they can unfairly influence a jury and so the rules of evidence do not allow them. This isn’t part of trial, the jury has already reached a verdict.
Victim impact statements are not evidence and are not governed by the rules of evidence.
More nonsense.
If you were correct, and there were actual legal grounds to object to these statements then the defense attorney could have objected to them.
Here’s an actual attorney. From the article:
The worse is everybody knows, including the judge, but they still chose to accept it.
Reading 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.
Hot take: victim impact statements shouldn’t be allowed. They are appeals to emotion.
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.
Sure, but that’s just vengeance.
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.
You’re right, we should change that too. Imprisoning a drunk driver for longer doesn’t fix anything. Mandate treatment, put a breathalyzer in their car, or revoke their license and give them probation. If they violate probation, then imprison them until they are rehabilitated.
I’m pretty sure @[email protected] was meaning the exact opposite, that it’s more about educating perpetrators than taking vengeance or merely dishing out old-fashioned justice on them.
It’s complicated, and people can have different philosophical approaches to the goals and purposes of criminal punishment. But my argument is that people should be internally consistent in their views. If people believe that the consequences of a crime should be considered when sentencing for that crime, then emotional consequences should count, too, because emotional harm is real harm.
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.
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.
Thanks for the additional context.
It’s a little weird that they get to speak for the dead like that
Seems like a great way to provide the defendant with a great reason to appeal
I’d really like to hope that this is a one off boomer brained judge and the precedent set is this was as stupid an idea as it gets, but every time I think shot can’t get dumber…
Boomer here. Don’t assume we all think the same. Determining behavior from age brackets is about as effective as doing it based on Chinese astrology (but I’m a Monkey so I would say that, wouldn’t I?)
The judge’s problem is being a nitwit, not what year they were born in.
OK boomer. (LOL)
Yeah a fiction has no place in a courtroom. If we can upload maybe we can revisit but this is just stupid.
Just to be clear, they were fully transparent about it:
However, I think the following is somewhat misleading:
I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. It seems that the motivation was genuine compassion from the victim’s family, and a desire to honestly represent victim to the best of their ability. But ultimately, it’s still the victim’s sister’s impact statement, not his.
Here’s what the judge had to say:
I am concerned that it could set a precedent for misuse, though. The whole thing seems like very grey to me. I’d suggest everyone read the whole article before passing judgement.
These, especially the second, cross the line imo. The judge acknowledges it’s AI but is acting like it isn’t, and same for the sister especially.
Your emotions don’t always line up with “what you know” this is why evidence rules exist in court. Humans don’t work that way. This is why there can be mistrials if specific kinds of evidence is revealed to the jury that shouldn’t have been shown.
Digital reenactments shouldn’t be allowed, even with disclaimers to the court. It is fiction and has no place here.
Sure, but not for victim impact statements. Hearsay, speculation, etc. have always been fair game for victim impact statements, and victim statements aren’t even under oath. Plus the other side isn’t allowed to cross examine them. It’s not evidence, and it’s not “testimony” in a formal sense (because it’s not under oath or under penalty of perjury).
Victim statements to the court are always emotionally manipulative. It’s akin to playing a video of home movies of the deceased, and obviously the judge understands that it is a fictitious creation.
No, this is exactly why it shouldn’t be allowed. This isn’t akin to playing a video of home movies because this is a fake video of the victim. This is complete fiction and people thinking it’s the same thing is what makes it wrong.
It is like a home movie in that it is an attempt to humanize the victim. There is no evidence in a home movie, no relevant facts, just an idea of the person that’s gone. You’re right that one is a memory of something that happened while the other is a fabrication of something that might have happened, but they are both equally (ir)relevant and emotionally manipulative. Many jurisdictions do prohibit victim statements beyond a written or verbal testimony. Some countries and states require you to use a form and won’t admit statements that do not adhere to the form.
Also remember that this is for the judge, not a jury.
Agreed. Until we get full, 100% complete UIs like in Pantheon, this is just Photoshop and a voice synthesizer on crack (not literally, this is an analogy).