Jurors could use VR to visit crime scenes, and help them reach a verdict

VR headsets could eventually become appropriate court attire.

Virtual reality is frequently used for both entertainment and education, immersing people in computer-generated environments. Australian researchers are now looking into the benefits VR technology could offer in a courtroom — and the results so far are promising.

In a paper published this May, researchers from the University of South Australia investigated whether the ability to inspect crime scenes in virtual reality could help jurors make decisions in courtroom trials. Measuring the impact of viewing the same crime scene in either VR or a photographic slideshow, they found that virtual reality led participants to a different, more consistent verdict than one based only on photos.

“We found that participants in VR were significantly more accurate in remembering the correct placement of evidence items,” the researchers wrote, noting they were also better at remembering some narrative aspects. “Participants who viewed the scene in the [photograph] Baseline mode were divided in their verdict decision, whereas participants in VR came to an almost unanimous decision.”

The researchers built their experiment prototype using the Unity video game engine and a VIVE Pro Eye VR headset. Scanning a mock crime scene, they presented two groups of 15 participants with the same scenario: the aftermath of a parking lot dispute between two people in which one was killed. While one group explored the scene in interactive virtual reality, the other was only given photographs to inspect.

“There were a few reasons we chose hit and run,” researcher Dr Andrew Cunningham told Mashable via email. “1. We modelled it after a mock crime from our forensic partners; 2. It was a situation with some ambiguity; 3. It relied on spatial understanding and interpretation; 4. It was not too horrific/stressful for participants.”

The different ways in which the evidence was presented seemed to have a stark impact on how participants understood and interpreted information, and on their subsequent verdicts. Of those who viewed the scene in VR, 86.67 percent determined the scene was a case of “death by dangerous driving” — that’s 13 out of the 15 in the group. Meanwhile, just 46.67 percent of participants who were presented with photographs came to the same conclusion, with a slight majority of 8 out of 15 choosing the more lenient “death by driving without due care” ruling instead.

“This experiment was developed with the input of forensic professionals but was nonetheless designed to be ambiguous,” wrote the researchers, stating that further research could be done using scenarios with an objective truth. “The goal of this experiment was to identify how participants develop a narrative based on what they were presented and how this further affects their decision-making.”

Virtual reality’s interactivity allowed jurors to examine the crime scene in a way that made sense for them, helping them coherently piece together events in their minds. Its ability to let participants literally see the accused’s point of view was also particularly impactful, with six of the 15 people in the VR group specifically stating that this influenced their verdict. Being able to place themselves in the accused’s position cast significant doubt on the defence’s argument that he hadn’t been able to see the victim — VR participants determined that he actually had a clear view.

“The verdict ‘Death by dangerous driving’ was 9.5 times more likely to be chosen by participants who viewed the scene in VR,” wrote the researchers. “A possible explanation for this result may be the amount of information that can be presented in VR…. An immersive scene allows large amounts of information to be presented in a way that is manageable, and participants took advantage of the exploration in a way that may have better supported their mental model.”

The researchers further noted that virtual reality could be particularly useful for crime scenes that involve reflective surfaces such as car mirrors, as photographs are unable to reliably capture them. Cunningham told Mashable that while the laser scanning technique they used isn’t good at capturing reflections, technology such as Google’s LightField would be up to the task.

Interestingly, participants who were shown the photographic evidence were also given the opportunity to look at the virtual reality scenario after the experiment had concluded. At least one stated that they would change their initial, more lenient verdict, while others who chose a harsher penalty in this scenario gained even more confidence in their decision.

The VR scenario had preset locations that users could ‘teleport’ to, as well as a free-roaming option.
Credit: Andrew Cunningham / University of South Australia

Though physical site visits aren’t uncommon in jury trials, VR reconstructions could both reduce costs and address situations where excursions aren’t possible. The researchers considered that it would be useful to conduct further experiments using a larger sample size of participants, as well as allowing them to deliberate together as a real jury would.

“The cost of jury viewings is significant; [it costs] thousands of dollars to transport the jury, judge, and scheduling,” said Cunningham. “Viewings can also take place months after the fact under different weather conditions, or the scene may have changed.”

A high tech solution like virtual reality may seem expensive, but Cunningham noted that current laser scanners make the cost of digitising a crime scene “negligible.” Scanning the crime scene also only took around four hours, time he believes could be reduced with experience.

“Policing agencies are already scanning crime scenes as part of investigations, so that will also reduce costs,” said Cunningham. “Forensics experts will re-create or scan scenes as well to analyse a scene (for example, tracing bullets) and this evidence may be presented in court currently as videos.”

Though it seems like VR technology would greatly assist the legal process, Cunningham believes it will be over a decade before jury duty involves strapping on a headset.

“I think VR will be used in investigations first by policing agencies and forensics analysts,” said Cunningham. “For the courtroom, there’s still quite a road before it is used.”

Virtual reality is slowly growing more common and accessible to the general public, offering great benefits in many other spheres. Even so, it’s still relatively new technology, and the justice system isn’t exactly known for being an early adopter.

“The technology is reaching a point where it is consumer friendly, but [introducing it to a courtroom] would require a progressive judge,” said Cunningham. “However, we did present the technology to South Australian judges, and their takeaway was that the technology was coming, that [it] will be used in the courtroom at some stage in the future, and that we should understand the impact of the technology to ensure the best outcomes.”