دو سوگرایی درباره مسئولیت کیفری ربات ها (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
ورود پرشتاب ربات های سطح سوم موسوم به ربات های هوشمند به عرصه اجتماع، ازیک سو متضمن فرصت های بی شمار برای توسعه در ساحت های مختلف و ازدیگرسو سبب ساز چالش ها و تهدید های معتنابه نسبت ایمنی و آرامش بشریت است. رسالت حقوق کیفری، پشتیبانی از دستاورد های مثبت و فروگشای این نوپدیدار و رویارویی با مخاطره های منتج از آن است. مسئله کنونی این است که در پرتو فعالیت های مضر هوش مصنوعی و به منصه ظهوررساندن گونه های جرم، بار مسئولیت کیفری معطوف به بازیگران انسانی، حسب مورد برنامه نویس یا تولیدکننده یا کاربر یا مجموع آن ها، است یا ورای این سنت حقوقی، می توان از اهلیت جزایی ربات ها و لزوم شناسایی آن دفاع کرد؟ در این پژوهش، نظر گاه های متضاد با روش توصیفی تحلیلی و ابزار کتابخانه ای استخراج و به بوته بحث گذاشته شده اند. یافته ها نشان می دهد که بهره مندی این پدیده ها از الگوریتم های پیچیده و توانایی آن ها بر یاد گیری، حل مسائل و اخذ تصمیمات مستقل، برخی را به امکان ورودشان به جرگه تابعان حقوق کیفری مجاب کرده است. اغلب اما بر این عقیده اند که موجود های موصوف باوجود بهره مندی از مختصات بالا، تحت الشعاع برنامه ریزی و راهبری انسان قرار دارند و داشتن حدی از خودمختاری غیربیولوژیکی، خارج از این فرایند نیست. به این سان، آن ها در نقض ارزش های بنیادین، عاملیت بی گناهی بیش نبوده و همچنان، مداخله گران بشری برپایه نظریه هایی مانند سبب اقوی از مباشر یا مسئولیت کیفری ناشی از رفتار دیگری برای مؤاخذه کیفری سزاوارترین هستند. ژرف کاوی برهان های غیریکپارچه در این نوشتار، به تردید کردن در رویکرد نخست و متصورنشدن چشم اندازی برای آن انجامیده است.Different Tendencies Regarding the Liability of Robots
The high-speed entry of third-level robots, known as intelligent robots, into the social arena, on the one hand, provides countless opportunities for development, and on the other hand, causes many challenges and threats to the safety of humanity. The duty of criminal law is to support the positive achievements of this new phenomenon and to face the risks arising from it. The issue is that in the light of the dangerous activities of artificial intelligence and the commission of various crimes, the burden of criminal responsibility is focused on human actors - as the case may be, the programmer or the producer or the user or all of them, can we defend the criminal competence of robots and the need to identify them? In this research, conflicting viewpoints have been extracted and discussed with the descriptive-analytical method and library tools. According to the results, these phenomena have complex algorithms and as a result, their ability to learn, solve problems and make independent decisions, has convinced some of the possibility of their entry into the group of criminal law followers. But the majority are of the opinion that the mentioned beings are under the influence of human planning and guidance. Therefore, they are innocent agents in the violation of basic values, and criminal responsibility based on theories of causation is stronger than stewardship or vicarious responsibility. The accuracy of conflicting reasons has led to the negation of the first approach and not envisioning a perspective for it. Keywords: Robot, Crime, Criminal Responsibility, Guarantee of Criminal Executions 1. Introduction The evolution of criminal law is not separate from the creation of changes in the number of its subordinates. The responsibility of humans for committing a crime and bearing its punishment has had a rational and moral justification due to having several coordinates, including knowledge, the power of thinking and will. Because, on this basis, they can understand the ugliness of the behavior prohibited by the legislator and its effects on the victim and the society, and still do it. Since the middle of the 20th century, the criminal liability of legal entities, despite their lack of human characteristics, has been accepted by industrialized countries, including England, in the light of social needs, relying on mechanisms such as absolute criminal liability, and in a gradual process, relying on measures such as vicarious liability, superior liability And the employer, the theory of brains and organizational responsibility were added to its scope. In the current situation, most of the legal systems as well as Iran, leaving aside the doubts of the past, have joined the movement of accepting the comprehensive criminal responsibility of these credit entities and have included it in their laws and procedures. Now that with the advancement of technology and the emergence of the new concept of artificial intelligence, robotics science has entered a new stage of its life to fulfill the long-standing hopes of mankind in creating human beings with human-like abilities and in some cases even more than him. The question is whether the time is near when, in order to protect the social system and as an undeniable necessity, the advanced robots that go to affect our various social and personal aspects with their performance, will be introduced as the third subject of criminal law and in an effort To determine the appropriate solutions to identify their criminal responsibility in case of committing crimes against security, property and persons? The importance of this issue is that the forms of artificial intelligence in the light of coexistence with humans, as much as they are able, have taken over almost all their tasks and many of their problems in fields such as medicine, engineering, education, law, sports, and even governance. solve, in the absence of regularity and lack of criminal control of their activities, they are considered a serious threat to public order and comfort. What form of this control can be more efficient and in case of any crime while playing the role of these beings, how should the distribution of criminal responsibility be, three approaches are envisioned. First; Criminal liability of real and legal persons related to robots, such as programmers and design companies. Second; Identifying the criminal responsibility of the robots themselves, third; Criminal liability of robots and real and legal persons related to them. The second and third approaches, which have a positive view of the issue of criminal law with institutions equipped with strong artificial intelligence, are focused on the fact that the definite requirements of criminal law and providing the conditions of crime through autonomy and having full mental capacity and the power of independent analysis of affairs, It is possible to fulfill and declare their risky behavior as a crime based on the principle of harm and utilitarianism and not necessarily moral responsibility. The research hypothesis is that despite the high ability of new robots in analyzing the environment and making decisions, they cannot be considered equal to human and legal entities in benefiting from criminal competence. Because, their creativity and mental power in all fields is completely the result of advanced design and algorithm writing by human hands in a process called hardware and software. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on the need to discover the role of the designer, programmer and user, and attribute the intent and criminal guilt of each behavior to them. Also, since the acceptance of criminal responsibility is a prelude to imposing punishment on the perpetrator of a crime who understands its sense and cause, the inclusion of criminal regulations on artificial intelligence is also doubted in this sense. 2. Methodology In this research, the descriptive-analytical method has been used and in the collection of knowledge, library expression has been used. In this way, the status of robots with artificial intelligence and its capability in the current conditions and the future process have been analyzed and various opinions about the feasibility of their inclusion in the subject of criminal law have been examined. 3. Results and Discussion This attitude, which has formed the so-called liberating front of robots in these years and believes in the criminal responsibility of robots, is not convincing. Because, the mobility of the members and the decision-making process in each robot is the product of the thinking and planning of expert humans, and therefore, the material and spiritual elements of the crime are actually attributed to human actors, each of whom is responsible according to their role. So, since robots make their decisions within the framework of human models and not based on self-thinking and complete self-awareness, it is not justified to talk about the necessity of criminalizing their behavior, including patriarchy, moral threats, and social necessities. On the other hand, despite being intelligent, these beings do not understand the reason for being punished and do not accept any effect from it. In other words, it is not possible to achieve the punitive and consequential goals of criminal law by punishing the robot. The lack of criminal responsibility for robots does not mean that the legislator is silent about their dangers. Rather, it is necessary to use these measures: first; Make the topic of new generation artificial intelligence the main focus of research. Second; In addition to the continuous development of robots, it is necessary to determine the duties of manufacturers, programmers and operators of these machines in terms of compliance with safety standards and guarantees, as well as the distribution of criminal responsibility among them in case of intentional or negligent violations. Also, it is appropriate that legal entities producing non-biological intelligences with risks, such as surgeon robots or self-driving cars, should be threatened with judicial supervision, temporary suspension, obligation to compensate victims and even liquidation in case of fatal accidents. Of course, this issue does not eliminate the responsibility of the guilty people. The order to destroy the harmful robot or change its algorithms is also not because of their criminal responsibility, which can be put on the agenda as an objective security measure and according to the criminal responsibility of the errant humans. In this way, a balance is established between the passion for innovation and investment in this field and the immunity of society from possible risks. third; Specialized judicial institutions should be trained regarding the crimes of persons active in the field of artificial intelligence at both the prosecutor's office and the predictive court and the special police for this matter. fourth; Pay attention to global approaches regarding protection and control measures against the expansion of artificial intelligence, including the UN Human Rights Council resolution, World Health Organization warnings, and conventions that are approved. 4. Conclousions and Fututre Research If in the future, robots will be created that prove their true autonomy and complete independence and can make value judgments like humans, then we can give a positive opinion about their entry into the criminal realm. In this case, the condition for the realization of this is to give them a legal personality by the legal systems. If this is positive, it is possible to give personality to them and introduce them as a legal factor regardless of the element of excitement and feeling. Just like associations, companies, institutions, which apart from this feature, have acquired personality and independent identity from the legal systems. With this measure, the obstacle of robots having independent property and having adequate insurance coverage to pay fines to the governme.
تبلیغات
