Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#31

Post by dkural »

benevol wrote: post #22

A slow-motion replay is just 1 way of "looking closer". The thing is, in order to not be hypocritical, we'd need to look as closely as possible. Once we do that, we'll be looking at the molecular structure of not only the brain of the perpetrator but also the whole body (as there is of course infinite interaction). We'll be asking for the causes that led to the body being as it was at the moment of the thing will cur…

The judiciary process is not just focused on punishment, but protection of society from violent individuals, rehabilitation, and creating disincentives for other perpetrators.

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#32

Post by entropy_ »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #26

I think what slow motion does is reveal the full violence of an action. Some commenters have mentioned that slow-motion tackles and punches look much worse than they do in real life. However, in real life, I think we underestimate the violence. Medical research into things like CTE has revealed that there is actually brain damage occurring during those plays. Notice the research used a gunshot video. I think the aver…

How violent an action truly is is irrelevant when deciding whether a murder was premeditated(first degree) or not(second degree). If I swing a hammer at a wall and someone happens to be passing by, I hit them in the face and kill them, it's going to look very gruesome in slow motion. That doesn't mean I intended to kill the person. If a jury is more likely to think I had time to notice the person passing by because of slow motion and thus believe that I intended to kill the person, then that's an error.

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#33

Post by afandian »

interfixus wrote: post #12
afandian wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 drasti…

Other, more important factors than what happened? Please elaborate.

Factors like establishing intent. Which is a major part of a trial, after establishing the facts.

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#34

Post by chrisweekly »

Houshalter wrote: post #19
Pelser wrote: post #13

The opposite might also be true - maybe slow motion shows true entent rather?

Perhaps. It seems like the issue is with slowmo is it looks like you have more time to decide and react, then you actually do. In real time it's more clear that an action was reactive, and that there was no time to make a calculated decision.

Confounding the issue: evidence that some reactions happen before the actor is consciously aware that there is a decision to be made (let alone actually making a choice and deliberately initiating a response). It goes beyond recoiling your hand from a hot stove before you're aware of the pain. Tests w/ next-gen helicopter gunship HUD trigger controls showed pilots opening fire microseconds _before_ their neural pathways for "friend/foe" recognition were leveraged. Need to dig up my sources... but the TLDR: a lot of neuroscience brings "free will" into question. Maybe consciousness is an epiphenomenon, and free will a story we tell ourselves, and "decisions" mere post-hoc rationalizations for actions we take before any awareness? Fascinating stuff.

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#35

Post by alanwatts »

dkural wrote: post #31
benevol wrote: post #22

A slow-motion replay is just 1 way of "looking closer". The thing is, in order to not be hypocritical, we'd need to look as closely as possible. Once we do that, we'll be looking at the molecular structure of not only the brain of the perpetrator but also the whole body (as there is of course infinite interaction). We'll be asking for the causes that led to the body being as it was at the moment of the thing will cur…

The judiciary process is not just focused on punishment, but protection of society from violent individuals, rehabilitation, and creating disincentives for other perpetrators.

Intentions aside, the 67% recidivism rate in the US shows that it is more focused on recurring punishment than rehabilitation.

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#36

Post by jccc »

interfixus wrote: post #12
afandian wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 drasti…

Other, more important factors than what happened? Please elaborate.

The subject of the article is how slow motion can greatly skew a jury's perception of intent, thus greatly skew the resulting sentence.

That is one rather important factor.

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#37

Post by pc86 »

DanBC wrote: post #18
interfixus wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other, more important factors than what happened? Please elaborate.

Is it a just law that should be enforced?

I don't think the speed of CCTV footage will affect any juror's opinion of the justness of a given law.

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#38

Post by alanwatts »

benevol wrote: post #22

A slow-motion replay is just 1 way of "looking closer". The thing is, in order to not be hypocritical, we'd need to look as closely as possible. Once we do that, we'll be looking at the molecular structure of not only the brain of the perpetrator but also the whole body (as there is of course infinite interaction). We'll be asking for the causes that led to the body being as it was at the moment of the thing will cur…

Careful with that train of thought, teaching unconditional love and forgiveness is what has led many mystics to be punished to the max: i.e. crucified, burned at the stake, etc.

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#39

Post by vidarh »

rubidium wrote: post #25
benevol wrote: post #22

A slow-motion replay is just 1 way of "looking closer". The thing is, in order to not be hypocritical, we'd need to look as closely as possible. Once we do that, we'll be looking at the molecular structure of not only the brain of the perpetrator but also the whole body (as there is of course infinite interaction). We'll be asking for the causes that led to the body being as it was at the moment of the thing will cur…

Is there any way for your statement (which has many bold assertions) to lead anywhere but "We're all just victims of our genes"? Your materialistic assumptions are a wonderful way to do science, but a terrible way to be human or govern.

It goes further. His statement (which I agree with) implies that we have no individual responsibility because our actions are entirely beyond our control.

In that case the perpetrator is just as much victim, which alters the entire balance of justice, and creates all kinds of ugly rabbit holes to deal with with respect to societal effects and morality.

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#40

Post by wrsh07 »

alanwatts wrote: post #35
dkural wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judiciary process is not just focused on punishment, but protection of society from violent individuals, rehabilitation, and creating disincentives for other perpetrators.

Intentions aside, the 67% recidivism rate in the US shows that it is more focused on recurring punishment than rehabilitation.

If you believe both statements, that simply implies the US judiciary system is broken. [which I think is true...]
Post reply on HN