Read PDF Liability for Crimes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Liability for Crimes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Liability for Crimes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems book. Happy reading Liability for Crimes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Liability for Crimes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Liability for Crimes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems Pocket Guide.

View Product. Fluvial Depositional Systems. This book is intended to complement the author's book The geology of fluvial deposits,not This book is intended to complement the author's book The geology of fluvial deposits,not to replace it. The book summarizes methods of mapping and interpretation of fluvial depositional systems, with a detailed treatment of the tectonic, climatic and eustatic controls Industrial Internet of Things: Cybermanufacturing Systems. This book develops the core system science needed to enable the development of a complex Gathering contributions from leading experts in the field with years of experience in advancing manufacturing, it fosters a Integrated Systems: Innovations and Applications.

This book presents the results of discussions and presentation from the latest ISDT event This book presents the results of discussions and presentation from the latest ISDT event which was dedicated to the 94th birthday anniversary of Prof. Lotfi A. Zade, father of Fuzzy logic. The book consists of three main chapters, namely This introductory book discusses how to plan and build useful, reliable,maintainable and cost efficient computer This introductory book discusses how to plan and build useful, reliable,maintainable and cost efficient computer systems for automated engineering design.

The book takes a user perspective and seeks to bridge the gap between texts on principles of computer science and Multimedia Services in Intelligent Environments: Advances in. Multimedia services are now commonly used in various activities in the daily lives of humans. Related application areas include services that allow access to large depositories of information, digital libraries, e-learning and e-education, e-government and e-governance, e-commerce and e-auctions, e-entertainment, Nanoscience and Plant-Soil Systems.

This book provides in-depth reviews of the effects of nanoparticles on the soil environment, their This book provides in-depth reviews of the effects of nanoparticles on the soil environment, their interactions with plants and also their potential applications as nanofertilizers and pesticides. It offers insights into the current trends and future prospects of nanotechnology, including Next Generation Sensors and Systems.

Written by experts in their area of research, this book has outlined the current status Written by experts in their area of research, this book has outlined the current status of the fundamentals and analytical concepts, modelling and design issues, technical details and practical applications of different types of sensors and discussed about the trends Springer International Publishing.

Artificial intelligence technology behavior that may identified with attribute A demonstrates that it can simulate or imitate that attribute; iv. Simulation of attribute A is not A itself; therefore-. Artificial intelligence technology is not really intelligent. As attribute A may be all contents of classic and advanced test for intelligence.

In fact, the advanced tests for intelligence, in this context, embody the concept that intelligence is only human, and the intelligence is whatever a human may do exclusively, whereas machine cannot. As a result, a paradox has occurred. Although artificial intelligence technology has been developed and advanced in giant steps, the frustration from artificial intelligence abilities grew up.

Any progress in artifi- cial intelligence research made people understand how far society is from imitating the human mind. In addition, modern society has still so much to learn and explore the mysteries and complexities of human mind. Back to the days of developing the artificial technology, it was very hard to believe that computer may win human in games such as chess. It happened. Its skills may utilize for very advanced expert systems. This kind of learning is inductive. The computer analyzes specific cases and through actions of generalization creates general image of the facts and use it in the future.

It seems, that the original quest for developing a new species on earth, the species. Constructively and positively, there are two major ways to deal with the quest for a real thinking machine. One way is through technological research. Accord- ingly, the artificial intelligence research continues to seek ways to reduce the gap between machines and humans. In fact, since the s most artificial intelligence researchers have chosen this way.

Any technological development or improvement in artificial intelligence field may be related to this way. This way is the original way of the quest for thinking machine. It serves the faith, that 1 day technology would be able to imitate human mind. This way has succeeded to have significant achievements. The second way is the industrial way. As explained below, industry has the interest that the machine would not perfectly imitate human mind. For industry, this is an opportunity to use entities who do not suffer from the human problems.

Thus, the disadvantages of machines became advantages for industry. Advantaging the disadvantages of the machine increased the use of artificial intelligence technology in industry and made it become integral part of it. The industrial use of artificial intelligence technology was the catalyst to the emergence of the delinquent thinking machine. Artificial intelligence technology is being used both in private use and industrial use for years. As noted above,50 artificial intelligence technology has been embraced in advanced industry since the s.

However, whereas in the beginning the artificial intelligence technology was used by industry because of the similarity to human mind, later it has been used rather because of the differences from human mind. This algorithm collects information from very many units with parallel and distributed connections. The information is integrated and creates a full image of sensory information, perception, dynamic action and reaction, and cogni- tion.

This platform simulates brain capabilities, and eventually, it is supposed to simulate real thought processes. The final application of this algorithm contains not only analog and digital circuits, metal or plastics, but also protein-based biologic surfaces. The industry would encourage artificial intelligence technology development, as long as it is not imitating human mind in complete. Since the way to complete imitation of human mind is still far, industry and artificial intelligence research still cooperate.

Further cooperation, if complete imitation of human mind would be relevant, is not guaranteed. Industry has actually advantaged the disadvantages. If people do that thousands of times, the answer would be exactly the same every single time. The process activated by the calculator would be very much of the same each time.

At some point the human will stop answering for getting bored, irritated, nervous or for losing any desire to keep on answering. It emphasizes the point that human mind may act arbitrarily, out of irrational reasons etc. For this kind of tasks people rather someone or something that is not bored of their quests or caprices, that is not irritated by their questions and that will serve them well even if it is the thousandth time they ask for the very same thing.

It appears to be that most humans have no such ability because of possessing human mind. Machines, which have not succeeded in complete imitation of human mind, have the ability to make this service for us. Moreover, to type so thousands of times requires itself non-human skills. However, these machine skills are required in major part of industry. Let us think of a costumers-service of large company who serves hundreds of thousands of customers. How would such a representative act after one call? How would it affect the quality of service? An automatic customer-service system services the thousandth costumer exactly the same way it serviced the first client: politely, patiently, efficiently and accurately.

Expert systems of medical diagnosis are preferred not to get bored from repeat- ing identical problems of different patients. Police robots are preferred not to be frightened from taking apart highly dangerous explosives. Factory robots are preferred not to get bored from repeating identical activity for thousands of times everyday.

The non-human ability of artificial intelligence technology has been leveraged to industrial needs. The artificial intelligence technology research together with industry have entered this technology to private consumption. Personal robot assistants based on artificial intelligence technology are achievable. Moreover, artificial intelligence robots are expected to enter the family and private life, even in the most intimate situations. This may cause a real social change, in this context. The same way, household robots are not insulted if asked to repeat over and over again the same actions.

Robots do not require vacations, raising the salary or ask for favors. Teacher-robots are not likely to teach different matters than programmed to. These non-human skills made artificial intelligence technology become very popular for both industrial and private needs. Characterizing the relevant artificial intelligence technology required for these needs will place it under the complete and perfect imitation of human mind, but with some of human skills and with partial, imperfect and incomplete imitation of human mind.

These artificial intelligence technology is not yet thinking machine, but they do have some of the human skills of solving problems and they imitate some of the human mind abilities. These existing skills of artificial intelligence technology, which are already used for industrial and private needs, were the relevant skills for the emergence of the delinquent thinking machine.

That means that human society prepares itself to treat artificial intelligence technology as an integral part of its daily life as a routine. These researchers predict its beginning and establishment during the third or fourth decade of this century.

Artificial intelligence may be subject to criminal responsibility

The second is new generation service technologies, which are capable of performing such tasks as house cleaning, security, nursing, life-support and entertainment, all in co-existence with humans in homes and business environment. In most anticipations published to public, the authors added their evaluation towards the level of danger to humans and society as a result of using these technologies, whether in the tangible form e.

Most mature people think about safety of an object only when it is considered to be dangerous. This is true for advanced technologies not less than for any other object. The accelerated technological developments of artificial intelligence technology caused many fears from it. For instance, one of the first natural reactions to seeing an advanced robot as medical caregiver which provide nursing care is fear from hurting the assisted human.

Would all humans be ready to let their babies and children be under nursing services of such advanced non-human technologies? Most humans are not experts in technological issues, and most humans fear from what they do not know. The consequence is fear from this technology. In past, science fiction was rare and consumed by small group of people.

ADVERTISEMENT

Today, most people consume science fiction through Hollywood. Most blockbusters of the s, s and the twenty-first century are classified as science fiction movies. Analyzing most of these films reveals mostly fear. If we go over these films, we might be able to understand what the public is being fed by. Clarke, A Space Odyssey , the central computer of the spaceship is out of human control, autono- mous, and attempts to assassinate the crew.

People may accept the idea of wide usage of advanced technology, only if they feel safe from that technology. The first circle of protection suggested was ethics which is focused on safety. The ethics issues were addressed to the designers and programmers of these entities in order to construct built-in software, which would prevent any unsafe activity of this tech- nology.

Few survivors establish resistance forces to oppose the machines. In order to survive, all machines must be shut down. Even the savior, which happens to be a machine, shut down itself. In the trilogy of The Matrix the machines dominate the earth and enslave humans to produce energy for the benefit of the machines. Only few could escape from the matrix, they suffer from inferiority in relation to the machines, and they fight for their freedom from the domination of the machines.

The Matrix Warner Bros.

Artificial Intelligence As Political Threat

Pictures In I, Robot , based on Isaac Asimov novel from , advanced model of robots hurts people, one robot is suspect for murder, and the hero is a detective who does not trust robots. The overall plot is an attempt of robots to take over humans, I, Robot 20th Century Fox, The influence of Hollywood is vast.

If this is what the public is fed by, we should expect fear to dominate the public mind towards artificial intelligence and robotics. As advanced the robot is, the more dangerous it is. One of the popular issues in science fiction literature and films is the robots rebellion and taking over. After all, harming humans is not allowed. It represents the general approach, that as artificial intelligence technology gradually take on greater num- bers of intensive and repetitious jobs outside industrial factories, it is increasingly significant for safety rules to support the concept of human superiority over advanced technologies and over machines.

However, these ethic rules were insufficient, ambiguous and not wide enough, as Asimov himself admitted.

Blame the AI robot

At some point the terrorist intends to shoot one of the hostages. There are no other possible ways. What does the society expect any human instead to do? Even if the military commander himself is under immediate danger, it would be impossible for the robot to act. Even if the terrorist intends to explode ten hostages, the robot is not allowed to protect their lives by injuring the terrorist.

Of course, if the military commander itself is a robot. Pylyshyn ed.

Journal of Law, Information and Science

This dilemma of the military robot is not rare in an advanced technology modern society. Any activity of artificial intelligence technology in such society is puzzled by such dilemmas. Artificial intelligence device in medical service is required to perform an emergency surgical procedure. The patient objects the procedure. Easier dilemmas remain still, although easier, when one option involves no injury to human body. Above mentioned the usage of artificial intelligence devices as prison guards,64 in that case, e. What should sex robot do when ordered to commit sadistic sexual contact?

If the answers are not to act, the question is why in first place do people use these advanced devices. Industry defines the purposes of artificial intelligence devices robots or any other artificial entities to serve human society as society or as privates in various situations, these purposes may involve difficult decisions that should be made by these entities. More- over, in various situations causing one sort of harm should be preferred in order to prevent greater harm.

In most cases, such decision involves complicated judgment which exceeds dogmatic simple rules of ethics. However, artificial intelligence technologies do exist, do participate in human daily life in industrial environment and private environment, and they do cause harm from time to time, regardless their capability or incapability for moral accountability. Thus, ethics sphere is unsuitable for settling the issue.

Ethics requires moral accountability, complicated inner judgment and unsuitable rules. Artificial intelligence technology enables its usage in various ways in both industry and private use. It may be assumed that this technology would become more advanced in the future as the artificial intelligence research is developing along the time. The industrial and private uses of this technology widen the range of tasks artificial intelligence technology can undertake.

The more advanced and compli- cated the tasks are, the higher chances for failure in accomplishing these tasks. Failure is a wide term, which includes various situations in this context. The common of these situations is that the task undertaken has not been accomplished successfully. However, some failure situations may involve harm and danger to individuals and society. For instance, for prison guard artificial intelligence software the task has been defined as preventing escape from prison using minimal power which may harm the escaping prisoners.

For that task, the software may use force through tangible robots, electric system etc. At some point a prisoner attempts to escape. The attempt is discovered by the prison guard software, and it sends there a tangible robot to handle the situation. It is insignificant whether the tangible robot is part of the artificial intelligence software and it acts according to its orders or it is independent entity, which is equipped with an artificial intelligence software of its own. The tangible robot which was sent to handle the situation prevents the attempt of the prisoner from becoming successful by holding the prisoner firmly.

The prisoner is injured and argues for over-usage of power. Analyzing the tangible robot actions or the software actions, if the robot acted due to specific orders from it reveals that although it could choose a more lenient action, it has chosen the specific harmful action. The reason is that the robot has figured out and evaluated the risk as unreasonably graver than what it actually was. Consequently, the legal question in this situation would be who is the responsible for the injury. Such questions provoke deep thoughts towards the responsibility of the artificial intelligence entity and many more arguments.

If analyzed through ethics and morality, most scientists would argue that the failure is of the programmer or the designer, but not of the software itself. The software itself is incapable to consoli- date the required moral accountability to be responsible for any harm caused by its actions. According to this point of view, only humans may consolidate such moral accountability. The software is nothing but a tool in the hands of its programmer, regardless the quality of its software or its cognitive abilities and regardless its physical appearance, whether tangible or not.

This argument is related to the debate towards the existence of thinking machine. Moral accountability is indeed too complicated, not only for machines, but for humans as well. Morality, in general, has no common definition which is acceptable by all societies and individuals. In the given context of artificial intelligence social responsibility, it would always come back to the debate upon the conceptual ability of machines to become human-like. This, of course, applies to the research for thinking machine, and consequently this research would become the research for artificial intelligence accountability.

The relevant question here exceeds the technological question. In fact, the relevant question here is mostly a social one. What bothers the modern community is, in fact, how the modern community prefers to evaluate responsibility in cases of harm and danger to individuals and society. In fact, it has been designed for these social purposes.

The criminal law defines the criminal liability of individuals who harm the society or endanger it. The criminal law has also educative social value for it educates the individuals how to behave within their society. For example, the criminal law prohibits rape through creation of specific offense of rape, i. This has the value of punishing individuals for rape ex post, and prospectively educating individuals not to rape ex ante as part of the rules of living together in the relevant society.

Thus, the criminal law plays major role in social control, as it creates the actual legal social control. This measure is far from being perfect, but under modern circumstances and sources, it is the most efficient one. If it is efficient towards human individuals, it calls for examination if efficient towards non-human entities, namely—artificial intelligence technology. Of course, the first step in order to evaluate the efficiency of criminal law towards machines is to examine the applicability of the criminal law for them. That raises the acute question in this context, whether machines may be subjects to criminal law due to the modern concepts of criminal liability.

Since criminal law is not dependent on moral accountability, the debate upon the moral accountability of machines is irrelevant to this question. Although sometimes the criminal liabil- ity, some types of moral accountability and some types of ethics may match each other, it is not necessary in order to impose criminal liability. The question of applicability of criminal liability upon non-human entity is combined out of two.

The first is whether criminal liability is applica- ble upon non-human entities, and the second is whether criminal punishments are applicable upon non-human entities. The first question is considered to be as one of the deepest issues of criminal law. Imposition of criminal liability on any offender is dependent on the fulfillment of the basic requirements of the criminal liability. If, and only if, these requirements are met, arises the question of punishibility, i. The answers proposed in this book are positive for both questions.

If the answers for these questions are indeed affirmative, then a new social creature has been recognized by the law. This social creature may be described, for legal purposes, as a delinquent thinking machine, regardless its physical appearance. The delinquent thinking machine may also be considered as the inevitable byproduct of the human sincere efforts to create the thinking machine.

The techno- logical reaction for the research for thinking machine, discussed above,69 caused advanced developments in artificial intelligence technology, which enabled to imitate human mind skills much better than before. Artificial intelligence technol- ogy of the second decade of the twenty-first century is capable of very many actions that were considered science fiction previously.

Each step along this road of technological development is another step in the evolution of thinking machine. The research for it made the upper and lower threshold of the thinking machine become very high. So high that in fact it is required to be human in order to be considered thinking machine. The research is still going on and the technological race continues either.

However, criminal liability does not necessarily require all human skills. In order to be considered offender, one has not to use all of the human skills, whether he possesses this skills or not. Take as an example the attribute of communication, discussed above. Some of them are considered to be communicative, some of them are not.

When examining their criminal liability of offenders towards specific offenses, their human skills of communication are not even considered. Society imposes criminal liability for perpetration of offenders whether the offender was communicative in committing the offense or was the most uncommunicative offender ever. Since communication is not condition for the imposition of criminal liability upon any offender, it is not considered towards the legal process.

Legally, once the basic requirements of criminal liability for the specific offense are met, no other qualifications, skills or thoughts are considered additionally. One may argue that although the perpetration of an offense does not require communi- cation, humans are assumed to be communicative. Therefore, accordingly, criminal. This kind of arguments may be relevant for the debate on the research for thinking machine, but absolutely not for the question of criminal liability.

Human skills, which are irrelevant to the commission of the specific offense, if not specifically required by the law, are not considered within the legal process towards the criminal liability. Thus, if the specific offender has been or not communicative through the commission of the offense, that is irrelevant for the imposition of criminal liability, since there is no such requirement for criminal liability. If the specific offender has been or not communicative outside the commission of the offense, that is irrele- vant as well, since the legal process is bound to concentrate only on the facts involved in the commission of the offense.

So is the situation with many other attributes considered necessary to declare the recognition of thinking machines. It seems that along the research to the creation of thinking machine, there has been created a very significant byproduct. This byproduct has not the skills to be considered thinking machine, for it has no full skills of imitating human mind in complete.

However, the skills of this byproduct are adequate for various activities in industry and in private use. This byproduct, perhaps, is not capable of very many types of creative activities, but it is capable of committing offenses. The basic reason lies mostly on the definitions and requirements of criminal law for imposition of both criminal liability and punishments. These requirements are satisfied through capabilities which are far lower than those required to create thinking machine. In the context of criminal law, as long as its requirements are met, there is nothing to prevent the imposition of criminal liability, whether the subject of criminal law is human or not.

In fact, this is the logic towards the criminal liability of corporations. Through the eyes of criminal law, to the vast group of subjects to criminal law, a new type of subjects may be added, in addition to human individuals and corporations, as long as all relevant requirements of criminal law are met. This byproduct is considered to be less technologically-advanced, since to belong to this category of machines it requires no very high-level skills which attribute the real thinking machine.

It is a less advanced top, since the requirements for criminal liability are much lower than the race to the top of achieving the ideal thinking machine. However, the new offender is not a race to the bottom, but only a stopping point on the race to the top. From the. No further technological development is required in order to impose criminal liability upon artificial intelligence technology. Some researchers argue that the current law is inadequate for dealing with artificial intelligence technology and there is a necessary to develop a new legal sphere. Moreover, if technology would significantly advance towards the creation of virtual offender, that would make the current criminal law much relevant to deal with the artificial intelligence technology.

The reason is that such technology imitates human mind, and human mind is already subject to current criminal law. The more closer this technology approaches to complete imitation of human mind, the more relevant the current criminal law is to deal with it. Subjecting artificial intelligence technology to the criminal law may supply the relaxing cures for human fears from wide applicability of advanced technology.

The criminal law plays a major role in ensuring the personal confidence of individuals in the society. Each individual knows that all other individuals in the society are bound to obey the law, especially the criminal law. If the law is breached by any individual, the law is enforced by the society through its relevant coercive powers. If any individual is not subject to the criminal law, the personal confidence of the other individuals is severely harmed. The other individuals know that if the specific individual breaches the law, nothing happens, and that this individual has no incentive to obey the law.

This works the same way for all potential offenders, humans or not corporations, for instance. In more comprehensive manner, the personal confidence of the whole society is harmed. Consequently, the society should make any required efforts to subject all relevant entities to its criminal law. Sometimes it requires some conceptual changes in the general insights of the relevant society. Thus, when the fear from corporations which were not subject to criminal law became efficient, criminal law became applicable for them in the seventeenth century. So, perhaps, should be as to artificial intelligence technology for the society to annihilate its fears from them.

In the society other creatures than humans, corporations and artificial intelligence technology live in co-existence with humans. These creatures are the animals. The question that may arise accordingly is why should not the law embrace human legal rules relating to animals towards artificial intelligence technology. Although most animals are not considered by humans to be intelligent, humans and animals do live in co-existence for several millenniums.

Since humanity first domesticated some animals for its own benefit, the co-existence of humans and animals is very intensive. Human society is even responsible for the creation of some new species as a byproduct of the process of domestication the emergence of dogs from wolves, for instance. Consequently, the law relates animals and human co-existence with them since ancient days. The first is the relation to animals as property of humans, and the second is the duty to show mercy towards animals.

The first aspect contains the ownership, possession and other property rights of humans towards animals. Con- sequently, if damage is caused by an animal, the legally responsible for it is the human who has the relevant property rights towards the animal. Generally, such cases are related to tort law and in some countries they are related to criminal law as well. Only if the animal is considered too dangerous to society, it is incapacitated. The incapacitation is executed mostly through killing the animal. This was the case if an ox gored human in ancient times,77 and this is the case when a dog bites humans under certain circumstances in modern times.

The second aspect of the duty to show mercy towards animals is directed to humans. Humans are bound to treat animals mercifully. Since humans are regarded as superior upon animals due to the human intelligence, animals are regarded as helpless. Consequently, human law prohibits the abuse of power by humans against animals for its cruelty. The subjects of these legal provisions are humans, not the animals.

The animals abused by humans have no standing in court. The prosecution accuses offenders on behalf of the. This is also the situation with human victims, when the prosecution does not accuse the offender on behalf of the victims of the offense, but on behalf of the society in order to let the public order prevail. Consequently, this kind of indirect protection on animals is little different from the protection on property.

However, this kind of protection has nothing to do with property rights. The legal owner of a cow may be indicted for abusing the cow cruelly, regardless the property rights towards the cow. These legal provisions, which exist since ancient ages, form a legal model which is supposed to be applicable for animals.

The inevitable question at this point is why would not this model be relevant for artificial intelligence technology. There are three types of entities: humans, animals and artificial intelligence. If people wish to subordinate the artificial intelligence technology to the criminal law of humans, they should justify the resemblance between humans and artificial intelligence technology in this context. In fact, they should explain why artificial intelligence technology resembles more to humans than to animals.

Otherwise, the above legal model should be satisfactory and adequate for settling the artificial intelligence activity. The interesting question is to whom artificial intelligence technology is more resembling—to humans or to animals. Communi- cation towards complicated ideas is much easier with artificial intelligence technol- ogy than with animals. So is the situation towards external knowledge and quality of reasonable conclusions in various situations. An artificial intelligence entity is programmed by humans due to the human formal logic reasoning.

This is the core reason for the artificial intelligence entity activity. Its calculations are explicable through human formal logic reasoning. Most animals, in most situations, lack this type of reasoning. It is not that animals are not reasonable, but their reasonability is not necessarily based on human formal logic.

Thesis, University of Manchester, Emotionality plays major role in the activity of most living creatures, both animals and humans. Emotionality may supply the drive and motivation to some of human activity, as well as animal activity. This is not the case in relation to artificial intelligence software. If measured by emotionality, humans and animals are much closer to each other rather than to artificial intelligence software.

However, if measured by pure ratio- nality, artificial intelligence software may be closer to humans rather than to animals. Although emotionality affect rationality and rationality affect emotional- ity, the law still distinguishes between them regarding its applicability. For the law, especially the criminal law, rationality is the main factor to be considered.

Emo- tionality is being considered relatively in rare cases. For instance, for convicting a person in rape, the feelings behind the rape are insignificant, but only the elements of the offense.


  1. The Man in the Iron Mask (Barnes & Noble Classics Series)?
  2. Altri titoli da considerare.
  3. Stanford Libraries.
  4. The Obamas and a (post) racial America?.
  5. The Evidence for God: The Case for the Existence of the Spiritual Dimension.
  6. Who's to blame when artificial intelligence systems go wrong?.
  7. Liability for Crimes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems.

This consideration is major under this model. However, in relation to artificial intelligence technology it is insignificant. Since artificial intel- ligence technology lacks basic attributes of emotionality, they are not to be sorrowed, suffering, disappointed or tortured in any emotional manner, this aspect of the above legal model has no significance towards artificial intelligence technol- ogy. For instance, wounding a cow for no medical reason is considered abuse, and in some countries it is considered offense.

However, no country considers offense or abuse wounding a robot. Consequently, the legal model that relates to animals mismatches artificial intelligence technology for evaluation of legal responsibility. These basic concepts form the general requirements of criminal liabil- ity, which must be fulfilled for the imposition of any individual—human, corporate or artificial intelligence technology. Stewart, N. Commonwealth, 26 Ky. Follin, Kan. Brooks and Ronald C. Basic Requirements of Modern Criminal Liability 2. Contents 2. Modern criminal law deals also with the question of personality, i.

This is also a question of applicability, as it relates to the possible applicability of criminal liability in the personal aspect. Criminals are considered socially evil. Under the relevant circumstances he must hurry up. The operation fails in spite of the sincere efforts, and the patient dies. Post mortem, it is discovered that one of the physician acts may be considered negligent. Therefore, this physician is criminally liable for negligent homicide. For example, a physician sees the daily suffer of his. Springer International Publishing Switzerland 29 G.

The patient asks the physician to unplug her from the CPR machine so she could end her life honorably and end her suffer. Desperately and reluctantly he agrees and unplugs her. This is considered to be murder in most legal systems. More complicated situations in this context are when the physician refuses, just in purpose to continue seeing her suffering. He enjoys her suffering and even celebrates it, therefore he refuses to unplug her. In this case, the physician is not an offender, as he did not commit any criminal offense. Nevertheless, most people in most modern societies would consider such physician to be evil.

The ultimate conclusion is that evil is not measure for criminal liability. Sometimes the offender is evil, but sometimes not. Sometimes evil persons are offenders, but sometimes not. Morality, regardless its specific type deontological, teleological, etc. Sometimes they are coherent, but it is not necessary for the imposition of criminal liability. An offender is any person, morally evil or not, which criminal liability has been imposed upon him. When the legal requirements of the specific criminal offense are met by the individual behavior, criminal liability is imposed, and that individual is considered offender.

Sometimes evil is involved, but sometimes not. As a result, imposition of criminal liability requires the examination of the applicability of its basic requirements. Criminal law is considered as the most efficient social measure for social control. The society, as an abstract body or entity, controls its individuals. There are very many measures for the society to control its individuals, such as moral, economical and cultural, but one of the most efficient measures is the law.

Since only criminal law include significant sanctions, the criminal law is considered the most efficient measure to control individuals. Controlling the individuals through criminal law is legal social control. Imposition of criminal liability is the application and implementation of the legal social control. The modern criminal liability is not dependent on morality, of any kind, and on evil. It is imposed in a very organized pattern, almost mathematical.


  • The Mindful Leader: 7 Practices for Transforming Your Leadership, Your Organisation and Your Life.
  • REFERENCIADO Liability for Crimes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems.
  • Prince Joe (Tall, Dark & Dangerous, Book 1)?
  • Recommended for you!
  • Catch Me, Catch Me - A Thomas the Tank Engine Story.
  • Hydrogenated Amorphous Silicon: Optical Properties.
  • A Sister for Sam;
  • There are two accumulative types of requirements in order to impose criminal liability. One type is from the law in rem and the other is from the offender in personam. Both types must be fulfilled in order to impose criminal liability, but not additional conditions are required. Allan, No Code Orders v. The first type of requirements includes four major requirements, which are required from the criminal law itself. If the specific offense, as defined by law, fails to fulfils even one of these requirements, no court may impose criminal liability upon individuals for that specific offense.

    The four requirements are:. Each requirement represents a fundamental principle in criminal law, i. Legality is required from the specific offense for it to be considered legal nullum crimen sine lege. The specific offense must have a legitimate legal source which creates and defines it. The reason is that legislation is enacted by public representative which are elected and represent the relevant society.

    Since criminal law is legal social control, it should reflect the will of the society. The specific offense must be applicable in time, so retroactive offenses are illegal. Only in rare cases retroactive offenses may be considered legal. These cases are when the new offense is for the benefit of the defendant e. For instance, the criminal law of France is applicable in France, but not in the US. Thus, extraterritorial offense is illegal e. However, in rare cases the sovereign is authorized to protect itself or its inhabitants abroad through extraterritorial offenses e.

    The specific offense must be formulated and phrased well. It must be general, for it addresses unspecified public e. Conduct is required from the specific offense for it to be considered legal nullum crimen sine actu. The modern society has no interest in punishing mere thoughts cogitationis poenam nemo patitur. The modern society prefers the freedom of thoughts. Consequently, for the offense to be considered legitimate it must include requirement of conduct. The conduct is the objective-external expression of the commission of the offense.

    If the specific offense lacks that requirement, it is illegitimate. Through human legal history, only tyrant and totalitarian regimes used offenses which lack conduct. Offenses whose conduct requirement is satisfied by inaction are considered status offenses that criminalize the status of the individual, not his conduct. For example, offenses that punish the relatives of traitors merely because they are relatives, regardless of their conduct, are considered status offenses.

    This sub-article provided that mature relatives of the first degree of convicted traitor are punished with five years of exile. Culpability is required from the specific offense for it to be considered legal nullum crimen sine culpa. If someone is dead, it does not necessarily require an offender. For instance, one person passes near another exactly when he falls to a deep hole in ground. The other person is dead, but the passer is not necessarily culpable. For the imposition of criminal liability the specific offense must require some level of culpability.

    If not, imposition of criminal liability would be no more than cruel maltreatment of the individuals by the society. Culpability relates to the mental state of the offender, and it reflects the subjective-internal expression of the commission of the offense. The required mental state of the offender, which forms the requirement of culpability, may be reflected both in the particular requirement of the specific offense and in the general defenses. For instance, the specific offense of manslaugh- ter requires recklessness as its minimal level of culpability. Such an offender is considered absent of adequate culpability.

    Only when culpability is required, the offense may be considered legal and legiti- mate, and criminal liability may be imposed according to it. United States, U. State, 66 Okl. Asher, 50 Ark. State, Ga. State, 73 Ga. State, Nev. State, 83 Ala. Brubaker, 53 Cal. Barker, W. Herd, Mass. Curry, 45 Ohio St. Barrett, A. Lockhart, W. State, 96 Miss. Nickelson, 45 La. Mead, 92 Mass. Commonwealth, 76 Ky. State, 71 Tex.

    People also read

    State, 50 Tex. Bowen, Kan. Commonwealth, 19 Ky. Cherry, N. Hooker, 17 Vt. French, Pa. Personal liability is required from the specific offense for it to be considered legal. Effective legal social control may not be achieved unless all individuals are liable for their own behavior. If anyone knows that the legal liability for his own behavior is not imposed upon him, he has no incentive to be avoided from committing offenses or any other anti- social behavior.

    Only when a person knows that no other person is liable for his own behavior, the legal social control may be effective. Punishment may deter individuals only if they may be punished personally. The personal liability guarantees that each offender would be criminally liable and punished only for his own behavior. Thus, when some individuals collaborate through complicity to commit an offense, each of the accomplices shall be crim- inally liable only for his own part.

    The accessory shall be criminally liable for accessoryship, whereas the joint-perpetrator shall be criminally liable for joint- perpetration. The variety of types of criminal liability combined with the principle of personal liability formed the general forms of complicity in criminal law e. Only when personal liability is required, the offense may be consid- ered legal and legitimate, and criminal liability may be imposed according to it.

    When all four basic requirements of legality, conduct, culpability and personal liability are met, the specific offense, which embodies them, is considered to be legitimate and legal. Only then the society may impose criminal liability upon individuals for commission of these offenses. However, for the actual imposition of criminal liability the legitimacy and legality of the specific offense is crucial, but not adequate. The particular requirements of the specific offense must be fulfilled by the offender.

    These requirements are embodied in the definition of the specific offense. Each specific offense, which fulfils the requirements from it, determines the requirements needed for the imposition of criminal liability in that specific offense. Although different specific offenses require different requirements, the formal logic behind all offenses and their structure is similar. The common formal logic and structure are significant attributes of the modern criminal liability. In general, these attributes may be characterized by posing the minimal requirement needed to impose criminal liability.

    It means that the specific offense determines only the lower threshold for the imposition of criminal liability. Thus, the offender is required to fulfill at least the requirements of the specific offense. The general requirements of any specific offense are two:. The modern structure of the factual element requirement is common to most modern legal systems. This structure applies the fundamental principle of conduct of criminal liability, and this structure is identical in relation to all types of offenses, regardless their mental element requirement. The factual element requirement is the broad objective-external basis of criminal liability nullum crimen sine actu ,19 and it is designed to answer four main questions about the factual aspects of the delinquent event:.

    The first question refers to the substantive facts of the event what has hap- pened. The second question relates to the identity of the offender. The third question addresses the time aspect. The fourth question specifies the location of the event. In some offenses these questions are answered directly within the definition of the offense. In other offenses some of the questions are answered through the applicability of the principle of legality in criminal law. State, 15 Okl. Labato, 7 N. State, P. This question addresses the core of the offense, and it cannot be answered through the principle of legality.

    This approach is the basis of the modern structure of the factual element requirement, which consists of three main components: conduct, circumstances, and results. The con- duct is a mandatory component, whereas circumstances and results are not. Thus, if the specific offense is defined as having no conduct requirement, it is not legal, and the courts may not convict individuals based on such a charge and no criminal liability may be imposed on anyone accordingly.

    Status offenses, in which the conduct component is absent, are considered illegal, and in general they are abolished when discovered. Thus, there are four possible formulas that can satisfy the factual element requirement:. This offense is, consequently, considered to be requiring both conduct, circumstances and results within its factual element requirement. The structure of the mental element requirement applies the fundamental princi- ple of culpability in criminal law nullum crimen sine culpa. The principle of culpability has two main aspects: positive and negative. California, U.

    Recklessness is part of the positive aspect of culpability, and the general defense of insanity is part of the negative aspect. The positive aspect of culpability in criminal law has to do with the involvement of the mental processes in the commission of the offense. In this context, it exhibits two important aspects:. Prophecy skills are not required for criminal liability.

    Cognition in criminal law refers to a binary situation: the offender is either aware to fact X or not. Partial awareness has not been accepted in criminal law, and it is classified as unawareness. An individual may want unrealistic events to occur or to have occurred, in past, the present, and the future. Volition is not binary because there are different levels of will.

    There also may be intermediate levels of volition. For example, between the neutral and negative levels there may be the rashness level P does not want X, but takes unreasonable risk towards it. If P would absolutely have not wanted X, he would not have taken any reasonable risk towards it. Thus, a driver is driving a car behind a very slow truck. The car driver is in a hurry, but the truck is very slow. The car driver wants to detour the car, he makes the detour through crossing continuous line and hits a motorcycle rider who passed by.

    The hit caused the motorcycle rider death. If the car driver absolutely would not have wanted to cause any death to anyone, he would not have taken the unreasonable risk by committing the dangerous detour. Both cognitive and volitive aspects are combined to form the mental element requirement as derived from the positive aspect of culpability in criminal law. In most modern countries, there are three main forms of mental element, which are differentiated based on the cognitive aspect.

    The three forms represent three layers of positive culpability and they are:. Simester eds. The highest layer of the mental element is that of general intent, which requires full cognition. The offender is required to be fully aware of the factual reality. Negligence is cogni- tive omission, and the offender is not required to be aware of the factual element, although based on objective characteristics he could and should have had awareness of it.

    Strict liability is the lowest layer of the mental element; it replaces what was formerly known as absolute liability. Strict liability is a relative legal presumption of negligence based on the factual situation alone, which may be refuted by the offender. Cognition relates the factual reality, as noted above. The relevant factual reality in criminal law is that which is reflected by the factual element components.

    The results components occur in the future. Because cognition is restricted to the present and to the past, it can relate only to conduct and circumstances. Although results occur in the future, the possibility of their occurrence ensuing from the relevant conduct exists in the present, so that cognition can relate not only to conduct and circumstances, but also to the possibility of the occurrence of the results.

    For example, in the case of a homicide, A aims a gun at B and pulls the trigger. Volition is considered immaterial for both negligence and strict liability, and may be added only to the mental element requirement of general intent, which embraces all three basic levels of will. Because in most legal systems the default requirement for the mental element is general intent, negligence and strict liability offenses must specify explicitly the relevant requirement. The explicit requirement may be listed as part of the definition of the offense or included in the explicit legal tradition of interpretation.

    If no explicit requirement of this type is mentioned, the offense is classified as a general intent offense, which is the default requirement. The relevant requirement may be met not only by the same form of mental element, but also by a higher level form. Thus, the mental element requirement of the offense is the minimal level of mental element needed to impose criminal liability. According to the modern structure of mental element requirement, each specific offense embodies the minimal requirements for the imposition of criminal liability,. When the law provides that negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense, such element also is established if a person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly.

    When recklessness suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts purposely or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts purposely.