The video was created by the sister of the victim based on what she imagined he would say.
The video asked for leniency. But the family of the victim formally asked for the maximum sentence. So there is a conflict here between the video made by the family and what the family asked for - I don't understand why the video was made at all.
The maximum sentence to the accused was handed down, against the wishes of the AI video.
So they are throwing out the maximum sentence based on the AI video asking for leniency?
Regardless of this mess, AI videos of victims saying made up things should not be allowed at all.
> So they are throwing out the maximum sentence based on the AI video asking for leniency?
It says:
> In sum, while the embedded “real” video footage of the victim was permissible, allowing the presentation of the AI video constituted fundamental error. And on this record, the judge’s consideration of the AI video so prejudiced Horcasitas as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence for manslaughter and remand for resentencing.
Which is more or less; "AI videos of victims saying made up things should not be allowed at all.".
Right. All of that makes sense, but you didn't address the directionality: the direction of the AI sentence was "make sentence more lenient", and (according to the person you are replying to) the sentence was the maximum sentence possible. So if we removed the influence of the AI video, the sentence can not increase from what is already the maximum.
You assume the intent of the video was to be listened to and accepted as actual input.
My assumption is roughly the opposite - the intent of the video was to prejudice the jury as far as possible against the accused (he killed a person honorable enough and empathetic enough to suggest a more lenient sentence! To the pit with him!)
It wasn't about the content of the video - it was about the emotional response to an AI generated facsimile of the victim.
Perhaps the prejudice is that the AI video is a means of manipulation making the victim appear more sympathetic. "This person must be an absolute monster to shoot such a good, kind forgiving guy." That was exceptionally poor judgement on the part of the judge.
-Edit: Exactly what the comment above said.
Why can't the sentence increase? Maybe the judge was so touched by this video that he gave more weight to the family's request for a harsh sentence. Maybe it just enraged him to see the grieving family affected like this. You're applying frictionless-sphere physics to complicated human thoughts.
The video came before the sentencing. The person I replied to is saying the video couldn’t have resulted in a worse sentence than would have been given without the video.
How was this even allowed by the judge? I wonder, if AI videos weren't a thing yet, would the judge allow one of the parties to bring in an actor dressed up and made up to look like the victim to offer testimony?
So basically it's that they believe the AI video was so off-putting that it sabotaged its own case in the judge's eyes? And that the case for leniency is stronger without the AI video so let the trial run again so the case can be heard without the AI video??
No, the prosecution didn't ask for the maximum sentence. They asked for 9 years. The judge went with the maximum of 10.5 years anyway and was clearly influenced by the video, regardless of the family's intentions.
Also note the obvious (but usually glossed over in news articles) fact that vacating the sentence doesn't mean he doesn't get a sentence. It means he gets remanded for resentencing (by a different judge, I imagine, but IANAL). Edit: Reading about resentencing processes it sounds like it could go back to the same judge, actually.
Yeah it’s super confusing to be honest. The judge liked the “remorse / forgiveness” video so much he did the opposite, and now they are saying the video caused the opposite of what was said in it.
It’s kinda crazy that this is even a discussion at all, the judge seems to not be fit for the job if they treat fabricated materials with any relevance. This is close to forgery of court materials.
I suspect the sister did not anticipate the implications of the video. She might have initially created it for herself as a kind of therapy to help her cope, then thought it might help the families case if she showed it. I am just speculating though.
Except her lawyer was there to explain court procedure and implications.
In vigorously advocating for her client, who expressed a desire for maximum sentencing, the laywer presumably would have explained its pikely effect (biasing the judge).
I am paraphrasing from the decision itself to overturn, so I am not sure what you are made about. Here is what it said:
"Indeed, rather than documenting an event or recording a particular moment, the AI video presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister."
Makes the victim more real (to the judge), I guess. And the family are victims too, the ones who continue to suffer, so I guess the 4D chess is demonstrating what the victims lost.
It eventually makes sense to my brain, aside from the AI part of course. If I'm a remarkably forgiving person my family might both appreciate that about me, and not be remarkably forgiving themselves. And they might say look, we lost this remarkable human being, punish the responsible party harshly.
> The attorney thinks the best way to get the maximum sentence is to make an AI video of the victim asking for leniency in sentencing?
Ab-so-fucking-lutely. This paints the victim in the most positive light. And makes killing them seem even worse.
Again, attorneys understand that a lot of times you're looking for an emotional hook, not straight up "facts". This video made the victim seem moral, empathetic, full of forgiveness... as close to freaking jesus as you can get.
And that other person killed them.
Now go sentence that person.
---
Instead imagine the video was of the victim smoking a cigar, laughing, and suggesting that he'd never forgive him and he should be put to death?
---
Which video makes the jury more likely to actually come back with a tougher sentence? The one where he's a bastard, or the one where he's a saint?
I read the article but I'm more mystified than when I read the headline. To recap:
A man is killed in a road-rage incident.
The killer gets the maximum sentence for manslaughter (10.5 years).
The appeals court says the judge was influenced by an AI-generated video of the victim and sends the case back for re-sentencing. Fine, ok.
Where it gets weird: The video was made by the victim's sister. In the video, the victim says he believes in forgiveness. However, the family demanded the maximum sentence for the killer.
This strikes me as strange. If they wanted the maximum sentence why did they submit a video about forgiveness? Did I miss something?
> This strikes me as strange. If they wanted the maximum sentence why did they submit a video about forgiveness? Did I miss something?
Just normal emotional manipulation.
Present the victim as an angel who was so perfect that they forgave the perpetrator => the perpetrator is an irredeemable villain for harming the angel => maximum penalty
I don't fully understand the details of the case, but if someone were to kill a family member of mine in a fit of road rage, I would be furious if the sentence was a paltry 10.5 years.
Victims or victims' families pleading for leniency always puzzled me. Where is your iron?
Not so much perplexing if they considered the AI rendition an accurate representation. It's somewhat quite internally consistent in its own illogical way
You mean: the family members personally wanted the maximum sentence, but they wanted the (dead) victim to be able to express that the victim wants leniency?
People are obsessed with granting forgiveness. Some people want to purposefully be victims just so they can forgive someone. Forgiving gives the illusion of control and a moral superiority that some people really crave. It is performative forgiveness. Conveniently, it is difficult to question someone's genuine intentions about forgiveness, and some people have discovered you can also not be the actual victim and still forgive someone for a crime against that victim.
In reality, there should be no forgiveness, only punishments doled out according to the severity of the crime, nothing more. Justice without passion.
In AZ a victim impact statement is given after the defendant has been found guilty, but before the judge sets length of the sentence.
The rules of evidence don't apply to the victim impact statement.
So was it thrown out because it was AI? If so, could the family have hired an actor to do the impersonation?
Was it thrown out because the judge said he loved it?
To my understanding the victim impact statement must be authentic. How can we know if that is how the victim would've reacted?
Making an AI / actor say: I believe in another life we could've been friends is different from the sister saying: I believe you and my brother could've been friends in another life.
Wait let me get this straight. A man is killed in a road rage shooting. His family shows up to sentencing with an AI video of the victim asking for leniency for the shooter. The judge says he loved the video, then gives out the max sentence anyway. Then a court of a appeals vacates the sentence on the grounds that the judge was biased by the video. Huh? Every single one these statements seems extremely illogical.
I fear you may not understand that engaging in political meta-commentary when you see someone say "AI" helps Trump politicize the term, even if you do so from an anti-Trump perspective. As a veteran of multiple language change wars, all of which I found incredibly obnoxious, the only times I've had to abandon useful old terminology is when some political movement successfully adopted that terminology as a badge.
The video was created by the sister of the victim based on what she imagined he would say.
The video asked for leniency. But the family of the victim formally asked for the maximum sentence. So there is a conflict here between the video made by the family and what the family asked for - I don't understand why the video was made at all.
The maximum sentence to the accused was handed down, against the wishes of the AI video.
So they are throwing out the maximum sentence based on the AI video asking for leniency?
Regardless of this mess, AI videos of victims saying made up things should not be allowed at all.
It says:
> In sum, while the embedded “real” video footage of the victim was permissible, allowing the presentation of the AI video constituted fundamental error. And on this record, the judge’s consideration of the AI video so prejudiced Horcasitas as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence for manslaughter and remand for resentencing.
Which is more or less; "AI videos of victims saying made up things should not be allowed at all.".
My assumption is roughly the opposite - the intent of the video was to prejudice the jury as far as possible against the accused (he killed a person honorable enough and empathetic enough to suggest a more lenient sentence! To the pit with him!)
It wasn't about the content of the video - it was about the emotional response to an AI generated facsimile of the victim.
It was turned over for 'prejudice' to the judge, not the jury. So this take isn't supported by the decision
The whole resentencing judgement came in part because the original judge stated how much he liked the ai video of the victim.
The ruling on this is here and is perfectly readable: https://coa1.azcourts.gov/Portals/1/OpinionFiles/Div1/2026/S.... The reporting of it has been abysmal.
Also note the obvious (but usually glossed over in news articles) fact that vacating the sentence doesn't mean he doesn't get a sentence. It means he gets remanded for resentencing (by a different judge, I imagine, but IANAL). Edit: Reading about resentencing processes it sounds like it could go back to the same judge, actually.
It’s kinda crazy that this is even a discussion at all, the judge seems to not be fit for the job if they treat fabricated materials with any relevance. This is close to forgery of court materials.
1:23 if you wanna watch it, it's uh... quite something.
And the judges reaction to the AI video in court: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr9b1_rintk
In vigorously advocating for her client, who expressed a desire for maximum sentencing, the laywer presumably would have explained its pikely effect (biasing the judge).
you don't know this, she could have been working based on advice from their attorney as to "how to get the maximum sentence"
"Indeed, rather than documenting an event or recording a particular moment, the AI video presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister."
What kind of 4D chess is this?
It eventually makes sense to my brain, aside from the AI part of course. If I'm a remarkably forgiving person my family might both appreciate that about me, and not be remarkably forgiving themselves. And they might say look, we lost this remarkable human being, punish the responsible party harshly.
Ab-so-fucking-lutely. This paints the victim in the most positive light. And makes killing them seem even worse.
Again, attorneys understand that a lot of times you're looking for an emotional hook, not straight up "facts". This video made the victim seem moral, empathetic, full of forgiveness... as close to freaking jesus as you can get.
And that other person killed them.
Now go sentence that person.
---
Instead imagine the video was of the victim smoking a cigar, laughing, and suggesting that he'd never forgive him and he should be put to death?
---
Which video makes the jury more likely to actually come back with a tougher sentence? The one where he's a bastard, or the one where he's a saint?
It isn't clear who created the video. It is possible the person who created disagrees with the rest of the family.
Hard to say who was thinking what.
A man is killed in a road-rage incident.
The killer gets the maximum sentence for manslaughter (10.5 years).
The appeals court says the judge was influenced by an AI-generated video of the victim and sends the case back for re-sentencing. Fine, ok.
Where it gets weird: The video was made by the victim's sister. In the video, the victim says he believes in forgiveness. However, the family demanded the maximum sentence for the killer.
This strikes me as strange. If they wanted the maximum sentence why did they submit a video about forgiveness? Did I miss something?
Just normal emotional manipulation.
Present the victim as an angel who was so perfect that they forgave the perpetrator => the perpetrator is an irredeemable villain for harming the angel => maximum penalty
I don't fully understand the details of the case, but if someone were to kill a family member of mine in a fit of road rage, I would be furious if the sentence was a paltry 10.5 years.
Victims or victims' families pleading for leniency always puzzled me. Where is your iron?
FWIW for normal slights, I believe in forgiveness too. Deadly violence over a road-rage incident isn't one of them.
In any case this whole thing is a tragedy.
In reality, there should be no forgiveness, only punishments doled out according to the severity of the crime, nothing more. Justice without passion.
The rules of evidence don't apply to the victim impact statement.
So was it thrown out because it was AI? If so, could the family have hired an actor to do the impersonation?
Was it thrown out because the judge said he loved it?
To my understanding the victim impact statement must be authentic. How can we know if that is how the victim would've reacted?
Making an AI / actor say: I believe in another life we could've been friends is different from the sister saying: I believe you and my brother could've been friends in another life.
It's an artificial video that is *literally and verifiably* not genuine.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49944127
Wake me up when it starts offering narratives, evidence and alibis.
Wake up.
We’re not doing this,
and it’s not political.