Research on the Criminal Law Regulation of Crimes Caused by Out-of-Control Intelligent Robot Programs
This article explores the criminal law regulation of crimes caused by out-of-control intelligent robot programs. The author proposes criminal regulation across program design, testing and certification, users, and regulators, advocating for conditional and objective attribution theories to determine responsibility. Additionally, the paper recommends strengthening the regulation of foresight obligations to reduce the risk of illegal activities resulting from program failures.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers and legal scholars studying the intersection of artificial intelligence, robotics, and criminal law.
What the document contains
The document addresses criminal law regulation, causal relationships, objective attribution, and subjective fault regarding crimes caused by out-of-control intelligent robot programs across design, testing, certification, and usage stages.
Specific statutory provisions, enacted legislation texts, or international treaties governing robot crimes.
- The criminal law risks of out-of-control intelligent robots involve blurred liability subjects and complex causal relationships.
- Program designers, testers, certifiers, and users may bear criminal responsibility depending on negligence or intentional acts.
- Conditional theory and objective attribution theory should be applied to determine responsibility in robot-related crimes.
- Enhancing the regulation of foreseeability obligations can help prevent illegal activities caused by program failures.
· 1. Introduction · 2. Analysis of Criminal Law Risks Associated with Out-of-Control Crimes Committed by Intelligent Robot Programs · 3. Regulation of Criminal Law on Crimes Caused by Out-of-Control Intelligent Robot Programs · 4. Objective Culpability Regulation for Out-of-Control Crimes Committed by Intelligent Robot Programs · 5. Regulation of Subjective Fault for Crimes Committed by Out-of-Control Intelligent Robot Programs · 6. Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
0/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
3/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
For users and regulators, it is recommended to strengthen the regulation of foresight obligations for the crime of losing control of intelligent robot programs
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
4/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
establishing and improving standards and procedures for determining the criminal liability of natural persons (units) responsible for testing and certifying intelligent robot programs, clarifying the criminal liability of natural persons (units) for intelligent robot -related crimes
3.2
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
3/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
In the program testing and certification stage, it is advocated to use the conditional theory and objective attribution theory to determine responsibility
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-23