Hacker News Reader

Comment by philipp-gayret | Hacker News Reader

> 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.".

View on HN

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.

> intent of the video was to prejudice the jury

It was turned over for 'prejudice' to the judge, not the jury. So this take isn't supported by the decision

Sure, not a jury recommendation in this case. But it absolutely is supported.

The whole resentencing judgement came in part because the original judge stated how much he liked the ai video of the victim.

If you replace "jury" with "judge" then their (excellent) point stands with no other modifications.

Is your point merely that they accidentally used the wrong word here? This strikes me as one of those shallow dismissals that the HN guidelines (wisely) caution against:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Thank you. This comment clarified my (sometimes all-too-literal!) feelings about this incident.

That makes sense. Thanks!

from what I understand, there’s a high standard here, beyond “beyond reasonable doubt”, along the lines of “no appearance of impropriety”

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 on earth was an AI video shown before the court? Since when are KNOWN forgeries acceptable as anything? Why aren't anybody addressing this???

Everybody agrees that the AI video shouldn't have been shown, so there isn't much need to address that point.

I think they meant how/why was it allowed to be shown in the first place.

I don't think the killer was actually prejudiced by this at all, but I think it was done as a way to say this nonsense shouldn't be in court at all.

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 sentence can't increase, it's mathematically impossible. There's no additional number of years the judge could have given.

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.

Maximum sentence can't be increased because it's already the maximum.

Why does the directionality matter? The initial sentence was untrustworthy, so a resentencing is necessary. Discussing the directionality of bias would just introduce another point of failure and more inefficiency in the system: maybe you believe the direction of bias is clear here, but I'm in many cases it might be less clear and so you would necessarily have to get lawyers involved to make arguments on each side.

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??

Reply on news.ycombinator.com