Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility
1–10 of 72 posts
Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility
#2This has always been a pet-peeve of mine, watching sports replays. When re-run in slow motion, some tackles seem more aggressive, mostly because of the body motion of the "victim" being exaggerated, while others look benign. The commentators then make judgement calls on the validity of the umpire calls, which is made in real-time, based on their opinion that was formed using the slow-mo replay.
Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility
#3But the article doesn't explain why it calls it "distortion", and not "clarification".
Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility
#4This has always been a pet-peeve of mine, watching sports replays. When re-run in slow motion, some tackles seem more aggressive, mostly because of the body motion of the "victim" being exaggerated, while others look benign. The commentators then make judgement calls on the validity of the umpire calls, which is made in real-time, based on their opinion that was formed using the slow-mo replay.
If you watch rugby union, the commentators often remark how slow motion makes the tackle look worse than it is. I think it's a recognised phenomenon.
Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility
#5Having recently sat on a Jury in the UK, deliberating on a triple assault case, the CCTV was the most crucial piece of evidence - eye witness reports were patchy and in some cases contradictory, and watching the events on CCTV was important in deciding what actually happened.
If we had not had access to the CCTV - both in real time and slowed down (which was actually produced by the defence, not the prosecution), then I strongly believe the outcome would have been different; indeed if another angle had been present then one count may well have been judged differently.
It is easy to view something slowly and decide that intent was more severe than may have been planned by the people involved, but in my experience it's also invaluable in seeing what actually happened, as the camera can be the most reliable witness to the facts of the matter.
Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility
#6But the article doesn't explain why it calls it "distortion", and not "clarification".
>The researchers believe that the slow motion version is giving observers the sense that those carrying out the violent acts on tape have more time to think and deliberate - and the observers therefore believe there is more intent in the violent actions.
Premeditation makes the difference between first- and second-degree murder, and being convicted of the former tends to bring much harsher sentences. The article describes the paper as finding that people who view (e.g. store CCTV) recordings of a murder only in slow motion and without a timecode, thus lacking any clear reference to the real speed of events, are much more likely to impute premeditation than those who don't. That's what "distortion" means here.
Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility
#7Having recently sat on a Jury in the UK, deliberating on a triple assault case, the CCTV was the most crucial piece of evidence - eye witness reports were patchy and in some cases contradictory, and watching the events on CCTV was important in deciding what actually happened. If we had not had access to the CCTV - both in real time and slowed down (which was actually produced by the defence, not the prosecution), the…
[deleted]
Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility
#8But the article doesn't explain why it calls it "distortion", and not "clarification".
It's a distortion because it didn't happen at slow motion. Not to say slow motion can't be useful, but it's not how it happened.
Think of the ultimate slow motion, a photograph. Emotions and muscle movements sweep across a face, but depending on the photographer's or editor's choice of moment, the same person can look scary or beatific.
Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility
#9This is no real surprise. It's apparent when they show the replays during a boxing match, the punches look much much worse than they do in real-time. Not to mention all the punches that you miss due to the speed of the action.
Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility
#10Having recently sat on a Jury in the UK, deliberating on a triple assault case, the CCTV was the most crucial piece of evidence - eye witness reports were patchy and in some cases contradictory, and watching the events on CCTV was important in deciding what actually happened. If we had not had access to the CCTV - both in real time and slowed down (which was actually produced by the defence, not the prosecution), the…
My view is that the aim of a using juries is to bring the things humans are good at* to the judgment process, i.e. deciding who's lying under cross-examination.
Humans might be good at detecting 'intent' in the real world and calibrated for reality. Their calibration might be completely wrong for slow-motion. So maybe slow-mo does give a better view of what happened to establish the facts of the matter but may drastically skew other, more important factors.
___
* sadly it doesn't seem to be true