Pike survived a lethal injection execution on Wednesday. She was sentenced to death for the 1995 killing of her classmate, Colleen Slemmer.
Christa Pike, the woman who survived an execution attempt in Tennessee earlier this week, is on a ventilator as she receives care in the hospital, her lawyers said in a new statement Friday.
“Christa remains critically ill and is receiving medical care for the devastating effects of Wednesday night’s events,” the lawyers’ statement said. “She is critically ill, unconscious, intubated and receiving breathing assistance through a ventilator.”
The statement said she is being treated for “the serious effects of the pentobarbital administered during the execution attempt, including significant injuries to both arms.”
Since this is impossible, I’m firmly against the death penalty.
Not necessarily in favour of the death penalty, but would you say that the crimes of Donald Trump qualify as having been “established in an irrefutable manner”? I certainly would, and his irrefutably proven crimes include treason, admitted rape, financial crimes in the billions of dollars, suborning genocide, and a myriad of direct war crimes. Are these sufficient to convince you that some place like the ICC in the Hague should have the death penalty as an option, since so many of the war crimes and crimes against humanity are irrefutably proven? For instance, should Benjamin Netanyahu face the death penalty, should he ever be brought to the Hague? Just genuinely curious about the implications of your take.
In the age of DNA, this is most certainly NOT impossible.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/colorado-crime-analyst-manipulated-dna-data-sentenced-rcna596722
No it isn’t impossible.
Objective, irrefutable evidence exists. Video recordings that clearly show one’s face, with further supporting evidence to ensure its not mistaken identity.
The words you’re using have rules. I don’t mean this in an adversarial way, but you are wrong.
Irrefutable evidence does not prove the claim, it just proves that you can’t refute the evidence. Video evidence can be misleading or fake. DNA evidence needs context to prove anything.
Anyway, like I say, these things have rules. The only things in the entire human domain that can be positively proved are mathematical statements. This is why gravity remains a theory, even after 350 years. One single counterexample disproves it. There are numerous examples of this happening in the context of the death penalty, where a jury was so convinced of guilt they condemned someone who was later executed, then, later still, new information emerged which proved them to be innocent.
Just by the pure first-principles of logic, the death sentence is a bad idea.
And in 99.9999% of the cases, I agree with you. Including this case. This woman doesn’t deserve to die, especially not in this botched manner (and especially not when people whose decisions are directly responsible of the suffering and death of thousands - the UnitedHealth CEO for example would sooner deserve this kind of execution, not the quick death of Luigi’s bullet).
And, again, I repeat, there’s maybe one or two individuals every decade that are truly so gruesome and irreparably incompatible with society that they would deserve to die - and even then, I’d tie their death sentence to rigorous examination of all evidence to completelt exclude the potential of them being innocent; thorough psychological evaluations to confirm that they’re incorrigible and irrehabilitable, and extensive security advisory that confirms the danger they’d pose to society.
Again; it is not possible to completely exclude the potential of them being innocent. That is literally beyond the wit of man.
No it isn’t… but please let’s keep pretending it is so all you idiots can keep downvoting. you clearly get off to it and who am I to stand in the way of your pleasure.
Yes, it is.
You’re not being down voted by idiots. You’re being down voted by people who have learned how logic works. Maybe you could, too? It takes minutes/hours.
You claim to be applying logic yet failing to do so even at this one query.
No, it’s not impossible to establish guilt without doubt. It has happened many times, and will happen with forensic sciences advancing. You claiming repeatedly that this statement is somehow false, does not make it so.
Video footage in the age of LLM is completely worthless as evidence.
No it isn’t. Even the best LLMs are incapable of making perfect fakes.
They might fool the average viewer, but forensic analysis can still easily pinpoint fakes.
And beyond that, I’ve already mentioned two methods that individually key a video or photo to specific hardware that is nigh impossible to fake (aka it’s mathematically possible, just not physically).
A year or two they couldn’t even fool the average viewer though. To prove a video is real you’d also have to prove there’s no model out there in the world (including in private testing) that could create a good enough fake.
How do you prove the video hasn’t been tampered with?
Forensic analysis can already do that. Yes, even AI tampering can be proven.
Being able to prove a positive doesn’t imply being able to prove a negative.
Except you wouldn’t need to prove a negative. If someone claims the evidence is AI generated, they have to prove that, not you that it isn’t AI generated.
And that’s what forensic analysis does - it looks at the video (incl metadata, pixel level analysis, and so on), compares other, known good evidence (say, the attestation of the sensor, or, as I mentioned, the sensor-unique pixel patterning), and confirm the authenticity by that.
Just because you’re unable to comprehend how thorough such analysis can be, and how well AI artifacts can be detectef if you really look at it, doesn’t mean that scientists whose day job is literally doing that, don’t have the methods.
And then we haven’t even talked about e.g. SynthID, something that I suspect will soon be regulation to be embedded into any visual genAI model.
I feels like you’re missing the point. There’s a tons of cases where innocent people get prison time despite no hard proof on them(via coercion or the lack of alibi), then there’s guilty people who hired a gang of lawyers to throw out hard evidence one by one(by finding every minor mistake by the prosecutor). It’s incredibly hard to proof people are beyond reasonable doubt that they should be executed, especially when the guilty can just play innocent.
How?
“trust me bro”
Ask a forensic analyst? I am not one so my knowledge of it is cursory at best.
However recent hardware now includes hardware level attestation in the image files that cannot be reproduced, so validity of video and photo evidence can NOW be established easily. If the signature is there, easy, the video wasn’t manipulated. If it is missing, the evidence is no longer attested, therefore questionable.
How do you know the attestation key hasn’t been compromised, allowing me to sign any video I want?
Because the attestation isn’t single step, isn’t a singular certification/signature.
Go read up on how Google and Apple are handling it.
Can you mathematically prove it’s impossible?
For now. At this point, it doesn’t matter much if the AI economic bubble collapses, research will continue, potentially at a lesser pace, and could still outpace, even if temporarily, detection methods.
Yeah, uh, no.
It might avoid free eye detection (still doesn’t, AI content is still incredibly easy to spot), but FORENSIC analysis is a bit more thorough than that.
Though I really love these kinds of comments. I at least used to work in the field some 15 years ago, so I have some awareness of what’s going on. Meanwhile the group of people here who saw flashy AI demos and two-three episodes of CSI think they know best.
For example, here’s a fun fact: camera sensor pixels aren’t equal. Even on the same sensor, there’s a subtle level of difference in sensitivity between pixels, pixel blocks, and so on. The built in ISP also has its own unique signature. Hell, there’s even a unique signature in the variations of the variance between key frames! All of which can be extracted - much like a hash - but would take immense computational power (we’re talking quantum computing levels, since it IS essentially reversing a hash or cryptographic key) to properly break.
This kind of fingerprinting alone could verify if a video was tampered with nor not. There’s been whitepapers about this kind of verification since at least 2012. Yet I bet none of you who oh so confidently downvote, knew about it.
Humans will still be behind the “forensic science”, and humans are fallible. There was just a DNA forensic analyst who was found guilty of evidence tampering. She was overworked so just… Made stuff up.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/colorado-crime-analyst-manipulated-dna-data-sentenced-rcna596722
Also as someone who currently works in the legal field, expert witness testimony is not the slam dunk you assume it is.
White papers aside has it been done in court yet?
Where is the line between “objective and irrefutable” and “room for reasonable doubt”?
Where is it today?
If there’s no contradictory evidence, then there’s no room for doubt. At that point it is up to the jury to make the decision - including if the death penalty should be applied, if the person truly poses a danger to society justifying their death.
Again, in my opinion, the death penalty is 99% antiquated. The only time it is ever justified if the person’s existence in itself poses a threat to the public. A simple murder, no matter how grievous, like this case, is definitely not death penalty worthy. The likes of John Wayne Gacy, or Jeffrey Dahmer. Of whom there’s maybe one every decade or so.