\n<\/p>\n
Chris Pelkey died in a road rage shooting in Arizona three years ago. <\/p>\n
But with the help of artificial intelligence, he returned earlier this month at his killer’s sentencing to deliver a victim’s statement himself. <\/p>\n
Family members said they used the burgeoning technology to let Mr Pelkey use his own words to talk about the incident that took his life. <\/p>\n
While some experts argue the unique use of AI is just another step into the future, others say it could become a slippery slope for using the technology in legal cases. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
His family used voice recordings, videos and pictures of Mr Pelkey, who was 37 when he was killed, to recreate him in a video using AI, his sister Stacey Wales told the BBC. <\/p>\n
Ms Wales said she wrote the words that the AI version read in court based on how forgiving she knew her brother to be. <\/p>\n
“To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, it is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances,” said the AI version of Mr Pelkey in court. “In another life, we probably could have been friends.”<\/p>\n
“I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives. I always have and I still do,” the AI verison of Mr Pelkey – wearing a grey baseball cap – continues. <\/p>\n
The technology was used at his killer’s sentencing – Horcasitas already had been found guilty by a jury – some four years after Horcasitas shot Mr Pelkey at a red light in Arizona.<\/p>\n
The Arizona judge who oversaw the case, Todd Lang, seemed to appreciate the use of AI at the hearing. He sentenced Horcasitas to 10-and-a-half years in prison on manslaughter charges.<\/p>\n
“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.”<\/p>\n
Paul Grimm, a retired federal judge and Duke Law School professor, told the BBC he was not surprised to see AI used in the Horcasitas sentencing. <\/p>\n
Arizona courts, he notes, already have started using AI in other ways. When the state’s Supreme Court issues a ruling, for example, it has an AI system that makes those rulings digestible for people. <\/p>\n
And Mr Grimm said because it was used without a jury present, just for a judge to decide sentencing, the technology was allowed. <\/p>\n
“We’ll be leaning [AI] on a case-by-case basis, but the technology is irresistible,” he said.<\/p>\n
But some experts like Derek Leben, a business ethics professor at Carnegie Mellon University, are concerned about the use of AI and the precedent this case sets. <\/p>\n
While Mr Leben does not question this family’s intention or actions, he worries not all uses of AI will be consistent with a victim’s wishes. <\/p>\n
“If we have other people doing this moving forward, are we always going to get fidelity to what the person, the victim in this case, would’ve wanted?” Mr Leben asked. <\/p>\n
For Ms Wales, however, this gave her brother the final word.<\/p>\n
“We approached this with ethics and morals because this is a powerful tool. Just like a hammer can be used to break a window or rip down a wall, it can also be used as a tool to build a house and that’s how we used this technology,” she said. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n