The issues of the responsibility of artificial intelligence (AI) for deeds prohibited under the threat of punishment is in my opinion one of the most important issues for the doctrine of criminal law at the beginning of the 21st century. Technologically advanced robots, due to the possibility of taking independent interaction with third parties and your ability to adapt and learn, They are simply unpredictable.
Therefore, they can make decisions, which will result in action that violates legal norms, while a person may be either deprived of the possibility of predicting this behavior, or not to have physical or intellectual possibilities to prevent this.
Read also at Business Insider
Robots replace people more and more often
Humanoid worksincreasingly used to care for sick or elderly people may not give them for the time of medicines used, and thus expose to the risk of losing their lives or health, i.e. an act of art. 160 of the Penal Code (KK).
Self -propelled cars (Autonomous Individual Passnger Vehicle) independently moving from point A to point B and using sensors, radars or GPS while driving, may mislead distance or interpret obstacles on the road, and result in a traffic accident, i.e. fill the features of art. 177 KK.
See also: Cars without a driver behind the wheel on Polish roads. This is how the law will change [OPINIA]
Intelligent algorithms, voice assistants Whether chatboots They can vulgarly offend its users in the network, and therefore in practice defame them (Article 212 of the Penal Code) or insult them (Article 216 of the Penal Code).
Medical works Carrying out precise surgical procedures, they may allow a mistake and expose the patient to severe damage to health (Article 156 of the Penal Code) or even lead to his death (Article 155 of the Penal Code)
Autonomous Drones or combat works themselves deciding to open fire can bomb housing estates or cultural goods, i.e. fill the features of art. 118 of the Penal Code or art. 123 of the Penal Code
A new law is needed
Response to the development of modern technologies It should therefore be either remodeling and redefining the basic principles and concepts in the field of criminal lawor creating completely new and separate principles of artificial intelligence responsibility. In this process of carrously objectify artificial intelligence, it would be worth taking into account several key issues.
First of all, it should be formulate the legal definition of the autonomous work of Versus electronic personality. Here it is worth referring to par. 59 point f of the European Parliament resolution of February 16, 2017 containing recommendations for the Commission on civil law on robotics (2015/2103 (INL)). The colloquial understanding of the term robot is very wide and does not allow the distinguish between the differences between the artificial intelligence, technically advanced programs and ordinary, used for simple repetitive activities of the machines. It would also be necessary to sanction separate provisions granting robots to legal capacity.
See also: Artificial intelligence and Polish chat in courts? Two resorts have such a plan
These provisions are to change
Under the second It would be necessary to change the concept of crime. Traditionally understood criminal law, focused on the responsibility of a natural person (Article 1, paragraph 1, 2 and 3 of the Penal Code), is not able to properly react to possible unlawful behavior undertaken by robots. The existing formula of responsibility excludes the possibility of a criminal liability of an entity that is not human.
WITHCurrently formulated under Art. 115 parish 1 KK Definition of a criminal act First of all, in the area of social harmfulness of the act and such premises as the form of intention or the motivation of the perpetrator.
Another issue that you should pay attention to determining the subjective scope of the provisions on criminal liability of autonomous robots. To put it shorter and simpler Currently developed concept of guilt cannot be referred to autonomous robots. First of all, because due to the lack of a criminal subjective side, there is no personal allegation, and secondly because The existence of a specific mental relationship between the “perpetrator” and the deed cannot be proved.
It would also be justified to create a catalog of crimes that can be committed by autonomous robots and effective proportional and repellent criminal sanctions (e.g. forfeiture, specific obligations or bans, reference, introduction of the forced manager of the robot managing, elimination of the robot).
It is also worth considering the introduction of other institutions known to criminal law, such as recidivism (Article 64 of the Penal Code), the limitation of criminal record (Article 101 of the Penal Code), limitation of the execution of the penalty (Article 103 of the Penal Code) or the seizure of the conviction (Article 106 of the Penal Code, Article 107 of the Penal Code). And this is not a song of a distant future.
Author: Izabela Jankowska-Prochot, Dr. Legal Sciences and Political Sciences. Assistant professor at the University of WSB Merito in Warsaw and an expert in the field of legislation of the Police Headquarters.
I’m Ashley Davis as an editor, I’m committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity and accuracy in every piece we publish. My work is driven by curiosity, a passion for truth, and a belief that journalism plays a crucial role in shaping public discourse. I strive to tell stories that not only inform but also inspire action and conversation.
