WEBVTT - Can the Speed of Video Make Us Look More Innocent or Guilty?

0:00:02.040 --> 0:00:06.800
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to brain Stuff from How Stuff Works. Hi There,

0:00:06.840 --> 0:00:10.080
<v Speaker 1>brain Stuff, Lauren Vogel bomb here. Slow motion video can

0:00:10.119 --> 0:00:14.080
<v Speaker 1>make the boring seem exciting and the extraordinary even more incredible.

0:00:14.360 --> 0:00:17.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm thinking of everything from Wonder Woman's fight scenes to

0:00:17.120 --> 0:00:20.400
<v Speaker 1>epic t Time here. But it turns out that slowing

0:00:20.520 --> 0:00:23.080
<v Speaker 1>videos not only amps up the drama of a scene,

0:00:23.280 --> 0:00:26.960
<v Speaker 1>it also creates bias in viewers, specifically when it comes

0:00:26.960 --> 0:00:31.000
<v Speaker 1>to jury members. In court cases, video footage of crimes

0:00:31.040 --> 0:00:34.520
<v Speaker 1>often plays an important role in determining a perpetrator's punishment.

0:00:34.800 --> 0:00:37.680
<v Speaker 1>In some trials, jurors may watch slow motion video of

0:00:37.720 --> 0:00:41.240
<v Speaker 1>the criminal acting question, supposedly to better analyze the events

0:00:41.280 --> 0:00:44.239
<v Speaker 1>that took place, But a group of researchers, writing that

0:00:44.320 --> 0:00:47.000
<v Speaker 1>any benefit of video replay should be weighed against its

0:00:47.040 --> 0:00:50.800
<v Speaker 1>potentially biasing effects, conducted a study that suggests slow mo

0:00:51.000 --> 0:00:55.200
<v Speaker 1>video doesn't always help jurors make well informed decisions. Instead,

0:00:55.320 --> 0:00:57.520
<v Speaker 1>the elongated time of the video makes it seem like

0:00:57.560 --> 0:01:00.840
<v Speaker 1>the crime took longer to unfold, so jurors are more

0:01:00.880 --> 0:01:04.640
<v Speaker 1>likely to perceive the action as intentional. Whether a jury

0:01:04.640 --> 0:01:07.120
<v Speaker 1>thinks the crime was premeditated can be the difference between

0:01:07.120 --> 0:01:09.800
<v Speaker 1>the second and first degree murder charge, so it's literally

0:01:09.840 --> 0:01:12.440
<v Speaker 1>a matter of life and death. This was the case

0:01:12.480 --> 0:01:14.800
<v Speaker 1>in the two thousand nine murder trial of John Lewis,

0:01:15.000 --> 0:01:17.800
<v Speaker 1>which the researchers used as the basis for the study.

0:01:17.959 --> 0:01:20.800
<v Speaker 1>In the trial, the prosecution showed a slow motion video

0:01:20.800 --> 0:01:23.960
<v Speaker 1>of Lewis shooting a Philadelphia police officer, and the defense

0:01:24.040 --> 0:01:27.440
<v Speaker 1>argued that the stretched time made the act seem premeditated.

0:01:27.840 --> 0:01:30.560
<v Speaker 1>The prosecution rebutted by pointing out that the jurors also

0:01:30.600 --> 0:01:34.040
<v Speaker 1>saw the video at regular speed. To test whether sloma

0:01:34.160 --> 0:01:37.600
<v Speaker 1>video actually increases perception of time and intent, the researchers

0:01:37.600 --> 0:01:41.880
<v Speaker 1>conducted for studies. In the first, participants acting as jurors

0:01:42.080 --> 0:01:44.560
<v Speaker 1>saw either the video of Lewis slowed down or at

0:01:44.600 --> 0:01:48.560
<v Speaker 1>normal speed. In the second, the researchers tested perceived intention

0:01:48.840 --> 0:01:52.360
<v Speaker 1>in another scenario an NFL video of a prohibited helmet

0:01:52.360 --> 0:01:54.800
<v Speaker 1>to helmet tackle, as well as the effect of video

0:01:54.880 --> 0:01:57.840
<v Speaker 1>duration by pausing the video instead of slowing it at

0:01:57.880 --> 0:02:01.400
<v Speaker 1>crucial moments. In the third, they tested whether displaying and

0:02:01.600 --> 0:02:05.440
<v Speaker 1>mentioning the video's speed decreased bias, and in the fourth,

0:02:05.520 --> 0:02:08.280
<v Speaker 1>they had participants watched either the SlowMo version or the

0:02:08.320 --> 0:02:11.919
<v Speaker 1>regular video or both to test whether the group's perceptions

0:02:11.919 --> 0:02:16.120
<v Speaker 1>would be different. Confirming the researchers hypothesis, showing slowed down

0:02:16.240 --> 0:02:19.160
<v Speaker 1>video quadruple to the odds that participants would believe the

0:02:19.160 --> 0:02:23.360
<v Speaker 1>shooter guilty of intentional murder before deliberation, partially because of

0:02:23.360 --> 0:02:25.440
<v Speaker 1>the increased amount of time that the jurors felt the

0:02:25.480 --> 0:02:29.680
<v Speaker 1>dependant had to act. Also, viewers who watched the slow

0:02:29.760 --> 0:02:32.520
<v Speaker 1>motion tackle the second study were more likely to think

0:02:32.560 --> 0:02:35.520
<v Speaker 1>it was premeditated as well, and pausing the video didn't

0:02:35.560 --> 0:02:38.560
<v Speaker 1>change that. For the third study, even though viewers were

0:02:38.560 --> 0:02:41.120
<v Speaker 1>repeatedly reminded that it was a slow motion video, that

0:02:41.160 --> 0:02:43.440
<v Speaker 1>didn't change the results. They were the same as in

0:02:43.480 --> 0:02:46.360
<v Speaker 1>the first study, and the final studies showed that the

0:02:46.400 --> 0:02:49.359
<v Speaker 1>viewers who saw only the SloMo version of events were

0:02:49.400 --> 0:02:52.680
<v Speaker 1>three point four times more likely to convict than viewers

0:02:52.680 --> 0:02:55.920
<v Speaker 1>who only saw the regular version. Viewers who saw both

0:02:55.960 --> 0:02:58.679
<v Speaker 1>speeds were one point five times more likely to convict.

0:02:59.320 --> 0:03:02.880
<v Speaker 1>This demonstrates that showing both speeds lessons bias, but doesn't

0:03:02.919 --> 0:03:06.560
<v Speaker 1>completely eliminate it. The authors admit that the study doesn't

0:03:06.600 --> 0:03:09.360
<v Speaker 1>determine the effect of slowed video on the accuracy of

0:03:09.440 --> 0:03:12.639
<v Speaker 1>viewers judgment but considering the fact that the Supreme Court

0:03:12.680 --> 0:03:15.800
<v Speaker 1>of Pennsylvania ruled the slow MO in Lewis's case admissible

0:03:16.000 --> 0:03:18.480
<v Speaker 1>and that Lewis is now on death row despite his appeals,

0:03:18.760 --> 0:03:20.760
<v Speaker 1>the results of this study could change how we view

0:03:20.800 --> 0:03:24.440
<v Speaker 1>the role of videos in determining criminal sentences, and with

0:03:24.520 --> 0:03:28.520
<v Speaker 1>the explosion of police body cameras, surveillance cameras, and smartphone video,

0:03:28.800 --> 0:03:31.680
<v Speaker 1>the effective video replaced speed on jurors could have even

0:03:31.720 --> 0:03:40.160
<v Speaker 1>more importance in the coming years. Today's episode was written

0:03:40.160 --> 0:03:43.160
<v Speaker 1>by Eve's Jeffcote and produced by Tristan McNeil. For more

0:03:43.200 --> 0:03:45.480
<v Speaker 1>on this end lots of other criminal topics, visit our

0:03:45.520 --> 0:03:58.760
<v Speaker 1>home planet, how stuff Works dot com.