Man murdered in 2021 "speaks" at killer's sentencing

[KitaYama]

You can rewind and watch from the beginning of video. I've seen more detailed video too on Facebook.

Road rage victim in Arizona resurrected through AI to deliver his own impact statement

A man who was killed in a road rage incident in Chandler, Arizona was brought back to life through artificial intelligence to deliver his own victim impact statement during his killer’s sentencing.

www.10news.com

 

[KitaYama]

This whole thing made me feel uncomfortable.
What really victim impact statement is?

To my knowledge, it is a formal statement made by a victim or someone close to the victim (like a family member) describing the emotional, physical, and financial effects of a crime.
If I pay a good writer, a professional novelist to write a speech, very emotional that brings tears to everyone's eyes, and then read it in a court, does it really shows the level of my suffering?
Is it OK to make people more sorry for me than what I deserve and bring more hatred on the defendant?

This AI generated victim even crosses the line and addresses the judge on his personal affairs (his daughter spring break)

 

[moke123]

Interesting. I'm going to pass it around the office and get some opinions. My initial take is it wouldn't be allowed but evidently it was.

 

[arnelgp]

in fact, they are everywhere.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1359941058576758

 

[KitaYama]

pass it around the office and get some opinions.

It would be great if we hear the opinion you gather.

My initial take is it wouldn't be allowed but evidently it was.

The scary thing in US and UK court is Precedent or Past judicial rulings to influence the judge's decision.
I mean once it's allowed (which was allowed), mostly other courts can not deny it, because it's been allowed by judge X in court Y.
The lawyers often cites similar past cases or past ruling by other judges to persuade the current judge.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

I don't think it's a good idea.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm a bit on the "uneasy" side on this one. A "victim impact" statement is supposed to explain the emotional hardship and perhaps other types of hardship brought on by the newly-convicted person's actions. The AI image seems to be unusually unsettling - but it also doesn't show the real reaction of the family. It shows a scripted reaction in which emotion doesn't play a part in the presentation. Which is where it seems contrary to the purpose of that statement.

I can't claim a lot of experience in this, but I have heard of people bringing notes for a "scripted" impact statement because they aren't comfortable speaking in public or because they suffer a type of brain freeze when speaking. There is also the issue that the emotion may be so deep as to render them unable to avoid public breakdowns. I understand the motive, perhaps, but I think it subverts the purpose of impact statements.

 

[Pat Hartman]

AI has no place in a victim impact statement.

 

[GaP42]

The issue is that the impact statement presented is that the "presentation" is an AI generated - a projected animated image of the victim: which in this case must be a confected representation given the victim was dead. The deceased did not have input/ or acknowledge personally that this was the impact and the hardships they personally experienced or the thoughts they may have towards the perpetrator.
If the victim was alive then surely they could use AI to prepare a statement which would be acceptable, just as you can use any other resource to help prepare such a statement. The family / friends may prepare and present an AI avatar but not one which purports to show the deceased victim's "thoughts".
So an AI presentation may be acceptable but only for those able to be present, and acknowledge it is the impact upon themselves

 

[KitaYama]

The issue is that the impact statement presented is that the "presentation" is an AI generated - a projected animated image of the victim: which in this case must be a confected representation given the victim was dead. The deceased did not have input/ or acknowledge personally that this was the impact and the hardships they personally experienced or the thoughts they may have towards the perpetrator.
If the victim was alive then surely they could use AI to prepare a statement which would be acceptable, just as you can use any other resource to help prepare such a statement. The family / friends may prepare and present an AI avatar but not one which purports to show the deceased victim's "thoughts".
So an AI presentation may be acceptable but only for those able to be present, and acknowledge it is the impact upon themselves

I was thinking so hard to put my thoughts together to answer @The_Doc_Man's comment, but couldn't express what I had in mind.
I think your response sums it up.
Thanks.

 

[moke123]

but I have heard of people bringing notes for a "scripted" impact statement because they aren't comfortable speaking in public or because they suffer a type of brain freeze when speaking.

I would say a majority bring notes, especially in big cases with high emotion.

It would seem to be "Hearsay" but since it's post conviction that wouldn't preclude it. There's generally a lot of latitude.

I could see it possibly being an issue in a sentencing appeal.

So an AI presentation may be acceptable but only for those able to be present, and acknowledge it is the impact upon themselves

Often victims / families submit a written statement which then gets read to the court by the A.D.A. So being physically present is not an issue.

It would be great if we hear the opinion you gather.

Everyone's down in court waiting for a jury to come back so it may be a while.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I would say a majority bring notes, especially in big cases with high emotion.

I acknowledge your expertise in this question. I find it unsettling because perhaps I see it as a slippery slope.

Are we to one day expect an A.I. commercially generated impact statement that cannot be specifically attributed to any person? I thought that the purpose of impact statements was to specifically show the effects on the victim's family so that the jury would not be so easily swayed during the sentencing phase, perhaps to balance out the inevitable plea from the perpetrator's family: "On, he was a good boy but he grew up in a tough situation." Or words to that effect.