Below is a summary for the article : Robot crime raises thorny legal issues that need addressing now by Tech Republic

*Note: Image used belongs to iStock/Madmaxer

For starters, Markou is curious how fault is determined when a robot does something considered illegal.

Before getting into the thorny issues of robot crime, Markou offers his thoughts as to why a system of laws is needed.

If an advanced autonomous machine commits a crime of its own accord, how should it be treated by the law? How would a lawyer go about demonstrating the “Guilty mind” of a nonhuman? Does evolving entail adapting to existing legal principles or writing new ones?

Markou believes that robots can commit crimes, but there is a caveat: “If a robot kills someone then it has committed a crime, but technically only half a crime, as it would be far harder to determine ‘guilty mind,'” explains Markou.

“How do we know the robot intended to do what it did?”.

SEE: Robot Law, book review: People will be the problem.

Markou feels that whether a robot can commit a crime or not depends on “Emergence.” Emergence is where a system does something new and likely good, but also unforeseeable, which is why it presents a problem for the law.

SEE: Robot kills worker on assembly line, raising concerns about human-robot collaboration.

It does not take much thought to envision the complexity of deciding whether a robot is guilty of committing a crime.

“At present, we are systematically incapable of guaranteeing human rights on a global scale. So I cannot help but wonder how ready we are for the prospect of robot crime given that we already struggle to contain that done by humans.” Also see.


To read more information, visit the original article :
This summary has been auto generated by