Bibliographic record
Abstract
Video records created by perpetrators and witnesses of violent crime are increasingly used as evidence in criminal investigations and court proceedings. When these records include the sexual assault, torture, and murder of individuals, they carry significant power to harm those exposed to them, but most importantly, through repeated viewing, they continue to harm those individuals whose suffering is immortalized therein. Using case study methods, including in-depth interviews with those centrally involved in the case, interviews with criminal justice professionals currently working with video evidence of violent crime, and a review of official documents and media reports, this article examines the tragic Canadian case of serial killers Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka and the videos they recorded of their crimes. We observe that challenging decisions regarding the handling of video records of violent crime during the investigation process, the viewing of such records in court, and access to them by the public and press during the criminal justice process continue to be areas of concern and contestation, pitting principles of open justice against those of victim dignity and privacy. However, challenges regarding access to video records do not end with a trial and an ultimate verdict of guilt or innocence; rather, decisions continue to be made about the preservation or destruction, the storing and cataloguing, and access to archived material. In examining questions regarding the preservation and continued use of the records, we conclude that a responsible and ethical approach to these challenges is best achieved through what Caswell called a survivor-centred approach. We suggest that this approach should include recognizing the traumatic potentiality of records, providing safety and support to those affected, recognizing the potential of records to produce and perpetuate injustice, respecting the autonomy and decisions of survivors, and accepting and facilitating the right to be forgotten.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".