this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
97 points (85.9% liked)

Technology

69867 readers
4352 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
97
After an Arizona man was shot, an AI video of him addresses his killer in court (www.npr.org)
submitted 2 days ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] turmacar@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If my family hired an actor to impersonate me at my killer's trial and give a prepared speech about how I felt about the situation it would be thrown out of court.

If my family hired a cartoonist or movie studio to create a moving scene with my face recreated by digital artists and a professional voice actor to talk about my forgiveness for my death, it would be thrown out of court.

That they used a generative program to do it and the Judge allowed the video to influence the sentence as if it were a statement by the deceased is deeply troubling.

[โ€“] joshchandra@midwest.social 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state:

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.

From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175

influence the sentence

From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.