He enables the killed man to address the courtroom in the killer’s sentences

In what is believed to be a first world, artificial intelligence (he) has allowed a man killed to address his killers at the hearing.

Christopher Pelkey ​​was shot dead in a street rabies incident in Chandler, Arizona, four years ago, but recently, he was used to recreate a digital version of the victim who was allowed to make a statement during the trial, a local news site reported.

The video presentation also included Pelkey’s true clips to give them a clearer understanding of his personality. Some of these clips were also used to create the similarity created by Pelkey’s, which you can see below.

In the video played in court, he’s version of Pelkey ​​says: “For Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me – it’s a shame that we encountered each other that day under those circumstances.”

He goes on: “I am a version of Chris Pelkey ​​recreated through the one who uses my picture and my voice profile. In another life, we might have been friends. I believe in forgiveness and in God I forgive. I always have and still do it.”

After watching the video, Judge Todd Lang said, “I love him. Thank you for this. I felt like this was true, that his visible forgiveness of Mr. Horacasas reflects the character I heard today.”

This week, the judge sentenced Horacasas to ten and a half years for Pelkey’s murder.

It was Chris Pelkey’s sister, Stacey, who came with the idea of ​​using him to create a resemblance of her brother to use in court. She said it was important “not to make Chris say what I was feeling, and distracting him and letting him speak because he said things that would never come out of my mouth, but I know he would come out of him.”

Ann A. Scott Timmer, Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, commented that he has the potential “to create great efficiency in the justice system and can help those who are not educated in the law to better present their positions. For this reason, we are excited about the potential of him”.

Timmer added: “But it can also hinder or even increase justice if used inappropriately. A discreet approach is best. Along these lines, the court has formed a committee to examine the use of it and make recommendations for the best way to use it … those who use it – including courts – are responsible for its accuracy.”

Indeed, while the use of it thus brings a powerful and deeply personal element to litigation, it also raises various ethical and legal concerns about their authenticity, emotional impact and proper implementation. As a result, it seems that other courts will hold in a moment of guidance on future cases if they decide to allow the statements of the victims created by him.