Right now, a defendant has the option of trial by jury or trial by judge alone. It will be interesting to see how long it takes before the option of trial by AI comes into play.
NGL, I'd take that over a jury trial any day of the week, if I were in fact innocent. Ditto for a trial by a biased or incompetent judge.
You've been spending too much time arguing about LLMs on the internet, and it's affected your thinking. It's just like boomers in the 70-90s worrying about the TV. But then IQ scores actually rose during those decades.
Not my experience at work. Our new developer hires have now a year and a half under their belt and still don't understand what they do. They are now able to spot style inconsistencies so there's that, but still have no understanding of our WAN, what is software defined and what is not.
Also, our management explained to us two weeks ago how 'Access& Identity' will help us be more productive, in a slide, and read that out loud without batting an eye. I get that management often isn't the most clever, but this is a degree of stupidity that wasn't present two years ago I feel.
Don't get me wrong, AI was great for me, it's a very good tool, but you can't tell me you understand as much of your code as you did a year ago.
There will be no courts. Just LLMs on all sides. After all wouldn't they be more capable and neutral? So in 5 years why not replace entire justice system by AI bots. If they can code surely they can do much simpler thing of interpreting law for justice. /s
> At the time of the sentencing, the judge who oversaw the case, Todd Lang, seemed to appreciate the use of AI. "I loved that AI, thank you for that. As angry as you are, as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness," Judge Lang said. "I feel that that was genuine."
It's hard to be real with a family grieving like that.
But this definitely feels like like digging up someone's corpse and performing ventriloquy for testimony, only with better technology. It should probably be illegal for the same reasons, and not just in court.
it would be a nice touch for the prosecution to throw a bed sheet over their head and yell "BOOOOOOOO! I'm the ghost of [victim]! He killed me , your honor!" pointed finger
Hey now, at least the judge didn't say "I feel that that was genuine, and load-bearing" or "It really hit a nerve for me—and honestly, I feel that's worth examining."
I'm confused. The video was shared by the victim's family, and it has him forgive the killer, and the judge believed it, and the killer's legal team complained? Isn't it in their favor?
I'm speculating, but in a road rage case, I can imagine a lot of scenarios where depicting the victim as gracious and forgiving would make the perpetrator look worse. There's no legal principle that sentencing should be reduced if the victim forgives you, after all. Some contemporary coverage I found in a quick search (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/road-rage-victim-speaks...) indicates he got the maximum sentence.
I doesn't matter what the AI model said, it was not real. The "victim" was dead and it could not forgive anyone. This "testimony" should not have been allowed in court.
Ten years is not a "great deal". Remember how much you've done in your life over the past ten years. Now imagine being caged up for that time instead, then being released into a world in which everything had passed you by.
It's better than being murdered, of course. But that isn't saying much! Right? The point is the whole situation is a tragedy all around.
Which is why fundamentally we need to move past this societal obsession with "solving" problems with firearms. The dynamic of firearms is pure spite - they make a bad situation for you into a slightly worse situation, while making it much worse for the other guy. While this is a necessary dynamic in some situations, it is most certainly not a first-line solution to how one should be approaching every difficulty!
But yet we've got pop media that demonstrates them as if they're simply some kind of "remote control" for other people. "I've got the gun, now you do what I say". "Oops, now you have the gun, I have to do what you say" and on and on and on. Obviously this is quite idyllic compared to what ends up happening in the real world.
Of course it's not ideal. But you're really getting waylaid.
Here in Canada (where we supposedly like restorative justice and giving people second chances) the penalty for murder is life in prison.
The non-parole period (the amount that must be served) is set by the judge at sentencing and ranges from a minimum of 10 years for second-degree murder. (The longest period is never: indefinite incarceration until proven to be safe around others -- mostly reserved for serial killers.)
That is to say: the absolute shortest sentence you can get in Canada for murder is ten years.
In America I believe it's often many decades if not the death penalty, no?
Even Norway - renowned for the progressive humanity of its legal system - mandates at least 8 years jail for murder.
In just about any country anywhere 10 years for murder is, objectively, a relatively light sentence for murder.
Not at all sure what the sentencing for murder has to do with firearms, really. Other than firearms being an effective way to murder. Most murders in my country are beatings and stabbings, probably since firearms are not as widely available. Does that prevent a few? Probably. Still seems non sequitur.
I'm not "getting waylaid", I'm pointing out the best answer to how many years in prison for murdering someone is, by far, wu.
Firearms being an effective way to murder is exactly what underlies the dynamic. But my point is that it isn't even the existence of firearms per se, but rather a culture that emphasizes escalating minor disagreements into life or death confrontations.
This speaks directly to your objectively comparing sentence lengths. How many people on the jury were thinking "shit, I drove here today, I everyday carry a gun, I could easily end up where the defendant is" ?
In the cross linked Associated Press story linked by another commenter, the family say they intend to keep using the AI video in each appeal to give the victim a voice.
(My opinion - it seems this AI video has been part of their way of processing grief and honouring the deceased.)
It seems the lawyers representing the killer have found a loophole that will eventually lead to every prosecution being thrown out on the same technicality. That would potentially lead to the killer being released, and not serving the 10 year sentence.
The accused’s lawyers haven’t found a loophole, they’ve found a prosecution willing to break the rules and throw the case. It’s the prosecution’s responsibility to ensure they bring good evidence, not the defense’s.
Apparently the legal team didn't think so, and believes their client would have received less than 10 years if the AI tear-jerker video wasn't played. Even though the word "forgiveness" was used - they are probably right.
Okay this is the clearest read I've found. Regardless of the language, the real(looking) depiction of the victim carried so much emotional weight it heavily increased the sentence. I see this being a reasonable possibility and not legal games to get out of a sentence. Using an ai victim statement is playing legal games.
Courts are expected to be an objective airing of evidence and any time they are not that, any party can complain and get the result thrown out. There should never be any "you can't complain about this deviation 'cause I think it helped you" clause (though courts do sometimes do this, inappropriately imo). It should have been transparently obvious that a fabricated video of a victim speaking interferes with this objectivity.
The sentence the judge handed down was the maximum available and more than the prosecutors requested. The defence was apealing the sentencing, which was the judge's choice, not the jury's verdict. The judge was influenced by the video (as the appeals court concluded) and, regardless of the intentions of the prosecution, seeing a fake image of the victim "forgiving" the defendant could have pushed him towards a tougher sentence.
I doubt the direction of the influence actually mattered for the appeals court decision, though - they just vacated the sentence as the video wasn't allowed by law - and as the sentence was the maximum possible for the conviction it doesn't sound like there was much risk in appealing.
The case centers around a road rage incident in which the defendant claims to have shot the victim in self-defense, with contradicting eyewitness testimony and prior issues in the trial over texts which indicated the victim had severe anger issues and was suicidal.
while I have a near road rage reaction to the use of AI in courts, it suddenly occured to me that in a case like this the killer could be sentenced to 20 years with his victims AI representation his permanent 24/7/365 x 20 companion,programed to be nice but take the piss, you know,posture, maners, pick up your socks, 24/7/365 x 20, good mooorning, hi how are you?, I'm still dead hey!
Not sure why this was ever allowed; Regardless of what you make the AI say, this seems like a pretty open-and-shut case of hearsay to me. You are purporting to speak for someone else, but it's really the sisters words.
The hearsay rule generally does not apply during sentencing hearings. Generally you challenge things in victim impact statements on due process grounds.
It seems totally inappropriate to play an AI video in court, but it seems like a waste of resources to waste more court time on this. But also, how can you murder someone and get only 10 years in prison?
>how can you murder someone and get only 10 years in prison
The conviction was for manslaughter, not murder.
It was a road rage incident and the other guy started it by getting out and approaching his car. But instead of staying in his car and driving away, he pulled his gun and shot him.
Killing someone in a fight (especially if the victim was acting aggressively) gets you a much shorter sentence than killing someone in cold blood.
50 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 6.1 ms ] threadthat's a leap i'm unwilling to take.
NGL, I'd take that over a jury trial any day of the week, if I were in fact innocent. Ditto for a trial by a biased or incompetent judge.
And people don't trust AI and don't like being judged by an algorithm.
You've been spending too much time arguing about LLMs on the internet, and it's affected your thinking. It's just like boomers in the 70-90s worrying about the TV. But then IQ scores actually rose during those decades.
Also, our management explained to us two weeks ago how 'Access& Identity' will help us be more productive, in a slide, and read that out loud without batting an eye. I get that management often isn't the most clever, but this is a degree of stupidity that wasn't present two years ago I feel.
Don't get me wrong, AI was great for me, it's a very good tool, but you can't tell me you understand as much of your code as you did a year ago.
This judge should lose his job
Only slightly less absurd than the witch trial in Monty Python's Holy Grail.
But this definitely feels like like digging up someone's corpse and performing ventriloquy for testimony, only with better technology. It should probably be illegal for the same reasons, and not just in court.
it would be a nice touch for the prosecution to throw a bed sheet over their head and yell "BOOOOOOOO! I'm the ghost of [victim]! He killed me , your honor!" pointed finger
Over the last several years I've become convinced that most of the insidious corruption in the country lives in the courts.
But yeah it would be funny if this backfires. 10 years for murder seems like a great deal for the murderer!
It's better than being murdered, of course. But that isn't saying much! Right? The point is the whole situation is a tragedy all around.
Which is why fundamentally we need to move past this societal obsession with "solving" problems with firearms. The dynamic of firearms is pure spite - they make a bad situation for you into a slightly worse situation, while making it much worse for the other guy. While this is a necessary dynamic in some situations, it is most certainly not a first-line solution to how one should be approaching every difficulty!
But yet we've got pop media that demonstrates them as if they're simply some kind of "remote control" for other people. "I've got the gun, now you do what I say". "Oops, now you have the gun, I have to do what you say" and on and on and on. Obviously this is quite idyllic compared to what ends up happening in the real world.
Here in Canada (where we supposedly like restorative justice and giving people second chances) the penalty for murder is life in prison.
The non-parole period (the amount that must be served) is set by the judge at sentencing and ranges from a minimum of 10 years for second-degree murder. (The longest period is never: indefinite incarceration until proven to be safe around others -- mostly reserved for serial killers.)
That is to say: the absolute shortest sentence you can get in Canada for murder is ten years.
In America I believe it's often many decades if not the death penalty, no?
Even Norway - renowned for the progressive humanity of its legal system - mandates at least 8 years jail for murder.
In just about any country anywhere 10 years for murder is, objectively, a relatively light sentence for murder.
Not at all sure what the sentencing for murder has to do with firearms, really. Other than firearms being an effective way to murder. Most murders in my country are beatings and stabbings, probably since firearms are not as widely available. Does that prevent a few? Probably. Still seems non sequitur.
Firearms being an effective way to murder is exactly what underlies the dynamic. But my point is that it isn't even the existence of firearms per se, but rather a culture that emphasizes escalating minor disagreements into life or death confrontations.
This speaks directly to your objectively comparing sentence lengths. How many people on the jury were thinking "shit, I drove here today, I everyday carry a gun, I could easily end up where the defendant is" ?
(My opinion - it seems this AI video has been part of their way of processing grief and honouring the deceased.)
It seems the lawyers representing the killer have found a loophole that will eventually lead to every prosecution being thrown out on the same technicality. That would potentially lead to the killer being released, and not serving the 10 year sentence.
The sentence the judge handed down was the maximum available and more than the prosecutors requested. The defence was apealing the sentencing, which was the judge's choice, not the jury's verdict. The judge was influenced by the video (as the appeals court concluded) and, regardless of the intentions of the prosecution, seeing a fake image of the victim "forgiving" the defendant could have pushed him towards a tougher sentence.
I doubt the direction of the influence actually mattered for the appeals court decision, though - they just vacated the sentence as the video wasn't allowed by law - and as the sentence was the maximum possible for the conviction it doesn't sound like there was much risk in appealing.
The conviction was for manslaughter, not murder.
It was a road rage incident and the other guy started it by getting out and approaching his car. But instead of staying in his car and driving away, he pulled his gun and shot him.
Killing someone in a fight (especially if the victim was acting aggressively) gets you a much shorter sentence than killing someone in cold blood.