History has been made in one Florida courtroom, as for the first time a judge has used virtual reality headsets in order to inform criminal proceedings and the overall verdict of the case.
Law has always remained intrigued by technological advancements, as new methods can often assist in uncovering unforeseen leads, providing new perspectives, and ultimately reaching a more concrete verdict.
There have been reports of AI passing law school exams through the use of ChatGPT and robot lawyers that take the place of humans, but this next step into the 'future' of court proceedings certainly has many intrigued.
As reported by Forbes, Broward County Circuit Court Judge Andrew Siegel made US legal history by being the first judge to employ the use of virtual reality technology in an official court case.
Advert
Judge Siegel donned a Meta Quest 2 headset in a stand-your-ground hearing in order to experience a defense expert's recreation of the defendant's perspective.
The defendant in question was charged with aggravated assault, and this was an effort to show his innocence in the eyes of the law.
Many remain conflicted about the viability of this new form of evidence in court, as while it provides a more detailed and 'realistic' recreation of events, it is very much still a recreation that could potentially overshadow the facts of the case.
Advert
Some argue that VR experiences would have too much emotional impact for those viewing it which would conflict with the concrete evidence of the case, although research from the University of South Australia has concluded that VR simulations allowed viewers to reach more consistent verdicts and recall evidence placement with far greater accuracy.
Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court Judge Scott Schlegel outlined that in VR, "viewers don't just observe a story - they live it," and with this you can understand why conflicting camps would be equally enthusiastic and apprehensive of such technology.
There's also the notion of cost, as VR reconstructions can total tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, which affords an inequality in justice between those who can afford the technology and those that cannot. Regardless of it's viability in the legal system, many argue that it must be available to all cases if it is going to be a part of court proceedings going forward.
Advert
Those on social media have also expressed their concerns, with one comment on Reddit arguing: "So whoever programs the VR experience controls the narrative. This should not be allowed."
Another adds that the "animation is based on the victim's description," and that it "isn't a CCTV, it's more like a testimony."
It'll certainly prove challenging for some to separate the subjective testimony from 'real life' in the confines of virtual reality though, and many within the thread have outlined similarities to 'dystopian' or 'cyberpunk' futures.