Why would a judge allow this? It’s like showing the jury a made-for-TV movie based on the trial they’re hearing.
Not only did he allow it,
While the state asked for a nine-and-a-half year sentence, the judge handed Horcasitas a 10-and-a-half year sentence after being so moved by the video, Pelkey’s family said, noting the judge even referred to the video in his statement.
It has about as much evidentiary value as a ouija board, but since the victim was a veteran and involved with a church and the judge likes those things we can ignore pesky little things like standards of proof and prejudice
Fucking yikes that judge needs to be removed
Twist: the judge used AI to write his sentencing statement. It’s chat bots all the way down.
Jury duty would be a lot more fun if trials were narrated by the Unsolved Mysteries guy
Ok, so his family believed he would forgive, wrote statement for him and made AI make it look like the victim said it. And this is somehow relevant to the court? It’s all nice the family thinks this but what has it got with justice?
But, the Judge, Todd Lang, loved that AI. It was well received. Go figure.
We’re living in a parallel universe now.
The future distopia is now.
WTF?
That man did not say anything. A computer algorithm smashed a video together they incidentally uses his likeness, nothing more
I’d rather have somebody puppet my corpse like in Weekend at Bernie’s. Basically the same thing but more authentic
This is some Weekend at Bernie’s 2 shit.
The fuck is wrong with people.
Unless stated otherwise, please do not use my likeness for legal proceedings on the event of my untimely passing. Please.
It’s too late. There’s like fifty Tetris games.
damn
I swear to Christ, if I get murdered and my family makes an AI video of me forgiving them then I will haunt the shit out of them.
An AI version of Christopher Pelkey appeared in an eerily realistic video to forgive his killer… “In another life, we probably could’ve been friends. I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives.”
The message was well-received by Judge Todd Lang, who told the courtroom, “I love that AI."
While the state asked for a nine-and-a-half year sentence, the judge handed Horcasitas a 10-and-a-half year sentence after being so moved by the video.
How does that even make sense?
Wouldn’t you lower the sentence if the victim AI says it forgives the killer? Because - you know - it significantly reduces the “revenge” angle the American justice system is based on?
This is awesome. Next we can have AI Jesus endorsing Trump, AI Nicole Simpson telling us who the real killer was, and AI Abraham Lincoln saying that whole Civil War thing was a big misunderstanding and the Confederacy was actually just fine. The possibilities are endless. I can hardly wait!
and AI Abraham Lincoln saying that whole Civil War thing was a big misunderstanding and the Confederacy was actually just fine
Considering he loved the Dixieland song, and his views on society normal for his time, and the intelligence of the average citizen, and those “AI’s” being an extrapolator of meaningless traits on the average citizen’s intelligence - we might actually learn that he’s sorry, he was wrong and we should all go rebel.
This is some Black Mirror level shit.
While the state asked for a nine-and-a-half year sentence, the judge handed Horcasitas a 10-and-a-half year sentence after being so moved by the video, Pelkey’s family said, noting the judge even referred to the video in his statement
So first of all I guess all that stuff in the video about forgiveness wasn’t really a factor. I’m just fascinated who called for this? Like was it the prosecution? In what context? Was this part of their closing arguments? Did the defense not object? So many questions.
You have to wonder if this is not grounds for an appeal.
The judge was so moved by a call for forgiveness that he increased the recommended sentence… Or if that’s not the case, that’s some poor writing in the article
Honestly, if I’m the defense, this has gotta be awesome, right? Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I have watched Boston Legal twice, so that’s basically the same thing, and what I’m hearing is these people want to get up on the stand and show the jury a video which either:
A) to the particularly inattentive, shows the victim clearly alive, or
B) demonstrates that even video evidence can be completely fabricated from whole cloth, and the opposition is more than capable of doing so to serve their own interests
Barring the staggeringly unlikely event that the defendant goes full-on Perry Mason Perp and outright says “hey, sorry I killed you, man” to the hologram, this seems like a pretty sweet deal.
Legally speaking, this was a victim impact statement.
Convicted criminals have long had the common law right of allocution, where they can say anything they want directly to the judge before sentence is passed.
Starting a few decades ago, several states decided that the victims of crime should have a similar right to address the judge before sentencing. And so the victim impact statement was created.
It’s not evidence, and it’s not under oath, but it is allowed to influence the sentencing decision.
(Of course, victim impact statements are normally given by real victims).
Why even do an impact statement? All Christian victims should be assumed to forgive their attackers, right?
An AI version of Christopher Pelkey appeared in an eerily realistic video to forgive his killer… “In another life, we probably could’ve been friends. I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives.”
“…and while it took my murder to get my wings as an angel in heaven, you still on Earth can get close with Red Bull ™. Red Bull ™ gives you wings!” /s
Fucking disgusting
This headline lies.
