AI Systems and Criminal Liability

The rapid advancement and widespread adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) and other enabling technologies underscores the enduring debate over attributing criminal liability to non-human agents. At the same time, the increasing risks associated with the use of AI systems, which may amount to grave violations of legal interests, such as life, bodily integrity and privacy, raise concerns as to whether one could address AI-related offences by means of employing traditional criminal law categories. In particular, it is questioned whether commonly accepted frameworks rooted in concepts such as personhood, actus reus, causation and mens rea are adequately equipped to address criminal conduct in AI settings. This article provides an overview of the key points raised as part of this scholarly discourse and presents two primary approaches to criminal liability in the age of AI, namely the use of the ʻpermissible risk’ doctrine and the solution of introducing new endangerment offences, exploring their merits and pitfalls.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Oslo Law Review
Published
2024-10-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.18261/olr.11.1.3
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.58
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

AI Systems and Criminal Liability

Athina Sachoulidou
3 citations
Oslo Law Review
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
1.58
article

AI Systems and Criminal Liability

Athina Sachoulidou
article en
3 citations

Abstract

The rapid advancement and widespread adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) and other enabling technologies underscores the enduring debate over attributing criminal liability to non-human agents. At the same time, the increasing risks associated with the use of AI systems, which may amount to grave violations of legal interests, such as life, bodily integrity and privacy, raise concerns as to whether one could address AI-related offences by means of employing traditional criminal law categories. In particular, it is questioned whether commonly accepted frameworks rooted in concepts such as personhood, actus reus, causation and mens rea are adequately equipped to address criminal conduct in AI settings. This article provides an overview of the key points raised as part of this scholarly discourse and presents two primary approaches to criminal liability in the age of AI, namely the use of the ʻpermissible risk’ doctrine and the solution of introducing new endangerment offences, exploring their merits and pitfalls.

Oslo Law ReviewVol. 11(1)
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (GR), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (PT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
1.58
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.