U.S. Professor of Justice studies technology implications on how to interpret video forensic analysis | News

September 8, 2021

Main photo of someone

Justin Picchorley

In the movie “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty”, Jan Penn-star photographer Sean O’Connell spent the best part of his career trying to take a picture of a snow leopard in the Himalayas. When the opportunity finally came, O’Connell chose to look into his eyes, not his lens, saying: “Once I like it, I personally, sometimes I don’t want to be distracted by the camera.” . ”

Justin Picchorley, an associate professor of political science, public affairs and international studies at the USA School of Politics, observes how eyewitnesses and video perspectives differ – only in court. In particular, he analyzed the use of eyewitness accounts by judicial systems, in contrast to what is seen and described in video by legal analysts.

“I hope the philosophical observer and forensic video analyst will discuss the use of video technology and our thinking,” Picchorley said. “Technology is usually built for profit, but that does not mean that all technologies are good for society. It is difficult to understand how a technology can change our thinking when creating technology, but I think we can carefully evaluate technology before we can easily adopt it. I want judges, judges, police and citizens to be exposed to video technology with great skepticism.

Picchorley is the author of a paper entitled “Judge Viewer and Justice Video Analysis – The Technological Implications of How We Think and Manage Justice.” The magazine discusses the expansion of technologies and the unprecedented impact of improving the critical nature of the concept and its practical implications.

Video technology, like social media technology, is more than just a device. According to the paper, it hides how people practice space and time, and how justice is administered in deep ways.

To investigate this relationship, Picchorley used his experience during a police trip, which gave him the opportunity to talk to the police and compare his experiences with the video footage he watched. Based on his own experiences, the Picchorley viewer is uniquely connected to an event without a technical point of view.

“I was sure that some things had happened during these trips and I was sure that I had an emotional connection with the actors in one event, but when reviewed, these details did not appear on 4K camera images.” . What I saw was that the nerves were simply lying in a dangerous position, the result of a camera taken from a certain angle; Or does video technology indicate limitations?

“When we watch videos, or something like a horror movie, we really feel something. This technology experience makes sense to us, but I don’t think it’s our tendency to doubt what we see and to solve the images or emotions we feel. ” “The forensic video analyzer process is based on frame-by-frame division, and in terms of training, the analyst believes that their interpretation may be meaningful.”

While the study found that the position of the forensic video analyst is based on facts, the video analyst’s approach may not be appropriate for the Velph viewer, which may be too reliant on video evidence analysis and may not be in-depth. On the whole case picture as presented.

To me, the position of a forensic video analyst at first seemed like a philosophical observer. I felt that I was missing something in the video that made me want to, but it was only after I released the two that I realized how much the analyst and the audience were different, ”says Piccorley. “Video technology has the potential to improve or limit our imagination. Science fiction films actually present our ideas in ways that are not researchable, but if video technology limits our capabilities in the justice system, the results are severe.

Piccorelli says the video analyst’s approach weighs heavily with the judges, suggesting that the analyst is more open-minded to encourage discussion. For example, when Piccorley served as a member of the Planning Commission, the organizers’ reports listed “factual findings.”

“The commission had to argue that the ‘facts’ were not valid for debate on development, which is a really difficult place to start a discussion,” he said. “Forensic Video Analyst is hired to present ‘facts’, and they cannot accept them again without ‘facts’. But what if the analyst instead offers their “interpretation” or “initial findings”? This may promote discussion in court, but the analyst must be consulted by the employer.

The definition of video technology in modern democracy is even more complex, which plays a role in technology mediation, the research paper said. The vastness of modern democracy suggests that a limited number of people may be present to observe an event, suggesting that the media and various news agencies may deny the case for the third time.

The most recent event in the media was the May 2020 issue of George Floyd. The media repeatedly showed an 8.5-minute video of police officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck. That video captured public opinion and led to riots and riots across the country.

Later, police camera footage showed more details about the explosion, with Floyd saying he was arrested in the back of a police car and that Floyd may have resisted arrest. Toxicology reports also showed an explosion in the floppy system, which could affect breathing. That said, Picchorli’s interactions with Chauvin and Floyd would not have changed the verdict or public opinion.

“Common sentiment, which I believe will inform the philosophical viewer, tells us that Floyd’s knee-jerk reaction for eight and a half minutes is not an acceptable response, even if Floyd opposes arrest.”

Again, Piccorelli is cautious about relying solely on video recordings.

“I think the real danger of using video recording to determine guilt is related to the emotional response we feel. This feeling is real, but it is also very different from what we are experiencing in person. ” “Because of this, I think we forget that we are seeing an event through a narrow lens, from a different point of view and from time to time. Technology deceives us in this way. ”

Piccorelli believes citizens, judges, judges and police officers could benefit from this study.

“If we have serious doubts about video technology, our justice system must be strong,” he said. That being said, I can see the emotional change that the justice system is not improving in the short term.

WIHR, a U.S.-based WIHR, gave Piccorelli a semester-long partnership, which provided valuable feedback and more time to spend on paper. For the past six years, Piccorley has taught postgraduate education in “Technology in Public Administration”, often presenting ideas to students. This discussion-based course will help provide Piccorelli with feedback to strengthen the study.

“I recommend a body like WIHR that does not agree with donors such as the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health,” he said. Just because a large charity does not have a call to answer a few questions does not mean that the study is worthless.

Leave a Comment