From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv
On 2026-10-08 3:47 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Judge allows AI-generated victim impact statement to be played at
sentencing hearing. Defendant appeals, gets sentence thrown out.
Who could have known that wasn't lawful?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2gwPQfhAa8
I found myself in agreement with the Appeals Court ruling and their
reasoning as the video proceeded. If the family had actually recorded
the victim before his murder, that would have been an entirely different thing, although even then I might be inclined to dismiss it unless he'd expressed those same sentiments consistently for a long time. After all,
he might have wobbled back and forth fairly regularly between believing
in forgiveness and revenge. I know I do: some things seem utterly unforgiveable in the heat of the moment but may seem forgiveable at a different time. Even victims who are extremely vengeful in the immediate aftermath of the crime may eventually decide that forgiveness offers
*them* a better path to healing.
We can never really know what is in the heart of another person. People
form impressions of one another and they may be quite accurate but they
may also be wildly inaccurate. I honestly can't say with certainty what
a person I've known all my life would feel about a given specific act,
even their own murder. I'm reasonably confident they'd be opposed to
being murdered but whether they could find it in their hearts to forgive
their killer is far less certain.
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2