Chris Pelkey was killed in a road rage shooting in Arizona three years ago. However, with the aid of artificial intelligence, he appeared earlier this month at his killer's sentencing to deliver a victim’s statement in his own words. Family members explained that they used this emerging technology to let Mr. Pelkey express himself regarding the incident that cost him his life. While some experts view this unique use of AI as a step toward the future, others warn it might lead to a slippery slope in the application of such technology in legal proceedings. Using voice recordings, videos, and photos of Mr. Pelkey, who was 37 when he died, his family created an AI-generated video of him, according to his sister, Stacey Wales, who spoke to the BBC. Ms. Wales said she wrote the statement that the AI version read in court, reflecting the forgiving nature she knew her brother to have. In court, the AI version of Mr. Pelkey stated: "To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, it is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances. In another life, we probably could have been friends. " He continued, "I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives. I always have and I still do, " appearing on screen wearing a grey baseball cap. The technology was utilized during the sentencing of Horcasitas, who had already been found guilty by a jury. The shooting occurred about four years earlier at a red light in Arizona.

The presiding judge, Todd Lang, appeared to appreciate the AI’s role in the hearing. He sentenced Horcasitas to 10-and-a-half years in prison for manslaughter. Judge Lang remarked, "I loved that AI, thank you for that. As angry as you are, as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness. I feel that that was genuine. " Paul Grimm, a retired federal judge and Duke Law School professor, told the BBC that he was not surprised by the use of AI in Horcasitas’s sentencing. He noted that Arizona courts have already begun integrating AI tools; for example, the state’s Supreme Court employs AI to simplify rulings for the public. He emphasized that since this use of AI occurred without a jury present, solely for the judge’s sentencing decision, it was permissible. Grimm said, “We'll be leaning [on AI] on a case-by-case basis, but the technology is irresistible. ” Nonetheless, some experts, such as Derek Leben, a business ethics professor at Carnegie Mellon University, expressed concerns regarding AI’s use and the precedents set by this case. Although he does not question the family’s intentions or actions, he worries that future applications of AI may not always honor a victim’s true wishes. Mr. Leben asked, “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?” For Ms. Wales, however, this approach allowed her brother to have his final word. She stated, “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. ”