External Element Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems

Hallevy, Gabriel

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10124-8_3

Gabriel Hallevy²

2253 Accesses

Abstract

The external element of the criminal liability is reflected by the factual element requirement of the offense. The general structure of factual element requirement is consolidated for all types of criminal liability. Nevertheless, it may be more comfortable to divide the discussion to the general structure within independent offenses and derivative criminal liability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 109.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 139.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Dugdale, (1853) 1 El. & Bl. 435, 118 Eng. Rep. 499, 500:

…the mere intent cannot constitute a misdemeanour when unaccompanied with any act;

Ex parte Smith, 135 Mo. 223, 36 S.W. 628 (1896); Proctor v. State, 15 Okl.Cr. 338, 176 P. 771 (1918); State v. Labato, 7 N.J. 137, 80 A.2d 617 (1951); Lambert v. State, 374 P.2d 783 (Okla.Crim.App.1962); In re Leroy, 285 Md. 508, 403 A.2d 1226 (1979).
2.
For the principle of legality in criminal law see Gabriel Hallevy, A Modern Treatise on the Principle of Legality in Criminal Law (2010).
3.
Ibid at pp. 135–137.
4.
Ibid at pp. 49–80.
5.
Ibid at pp. 81–132.
6.
See, e.g., Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962).
7.
Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part sec. 11 (2nd ed., 1961).
8.
Gabriel Hallevy, Victim’s Complicity in Criminal Law, 2 Int’l J. of Punishment & Sentencing 72 (2006).
9.
Manley, (1844) 1 Cox C.C. 104; State v. Bailey, 63 W.Va. 668, 60 S.E. 785 (1908).
10.
Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 69 S.Ct. 766, 93 L.Ed. 919 (1949); Pollack v. State, 215 Wis. 200, 253 N.W. 560 (1934); Baker v. United States, 21 F.2d 903 (4th Cir.1927); Miller v. State, 25 Wis. 384 (1870); Anderson v. Superior Court, 78 Cal.App.2d 22, 177 P.2d 315 (1947); People v. Cohen, 68 N.Y.S.2d 140 (1947); People v. Luciano, 277 N.Y. 348, 14 N.E.2d 433 (1938); State v. Bruno, 105 F.2d 921 (2nd Cir.1939); State v. Walton, 227 Conn. 32, 630 A.2d 990 (1993).
11.
United States v. Bell, 812 F.2d 188 (5th Cir.1987).
12.
Harley, (1830) 4 Car. & P. 369, 172 Eng. Rep. 744.
13.
Bingley, (1821) Russ. & Ry. 446, 168 Eng. Rep. 890; State v. Adam, 105 La. 737, 30 So. 101 (1901); Roney v. State, 76 Ga. 731 (1886); Smith v. People, 1 Colo. 121 (1869); United States v. Rodgers, 419 F.2d 1315 (10th Cir.1969).
14.
Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946); State v. Cohen, 173 Ariz. 497, 844 P.2d 1147 (1992); State v. Carrasco, 124 N.M. 64, 946 P.2d 1075 (1997); People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48, 424 N.Y.S.2d 157, 399 N.E.2d 1177 (1979); State v. Stein, 94 Wash.App. 616, 972 P.2d 505 (1999); Commonwealth v. Perry, 357 Mass. 149, 256 N.E.2d 745 (1970); United States v. Buchannan, 115 F.3d 445 (7th Cir.1997); United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Chorman, 910 F.2d 102 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Moreno, 588 F.2d 490 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Castaneda, 9 F.3d 761 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Walls, 225 F.3d 858 (7th Cir.2000); State v. Duaz, 237 Conn. 518, 679 A.2d 902 (1996); Harris v. State, 177 Ala. 17, 59 So. 205 (1912); Apostoledes v. State, 323 Md. 456, 593 A.2d 1117 (1991); State v. Anderberg, 89 S.D. 75, 228 N.W.2d 631 (1975); Espy v. State, 54 Wyo. 291, 92 P.2d 549 (1939); State v. Hope, 215 Conn. 570, 577 A.2d 1000 (1990).
15.
Dusenbery v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 770, 263 S.E.2d 392 (1980).
16.
Nicola Lacey and Celia Wells, Reconstructing Criminal Law – Critical Perspectives on Crime and the Criminal Process 53 (2nd ed., 1998).
17.
Butt, (1884) 49 J.P. 233, 15 Cox C.C. 564, 51 L.T. 607, 1 T.L.R. 103; Stringer and Banks, (1991) 94 Cr. App. Rep. 13; Manley, (1844) 1 Cox C.C. 104; Mazeau, (1840) 9 Car. & P. 676, 173 Eng. Rep. 1006.
18.
Compare article 26 of the German penal code which provides:

Als Anstifter wird gleich einem Täter bestraft, wer vorsätzlich einen anderen zu dessen vorsätzlich begangener rechtswidriger Tat bestimmt hat;

Article 121-7 of the French penal code provides:

Est également complice la personne qui par don, promesse, menace, ordre, abus d’autorité ou de pouvoir aura provoqué à une infraction ou donné des instructions pour la commettre;

Section 5.02(1) of The American Law Institute, Model Penal Code – Official Draft and Explanatory Notes 76 (1962, 1985) provides:

A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct that would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime or would establish his complicity in its commission or attempted commission.
19.
See e.g., article 27(1) of the German penal code provides:

Als Gehilfe wird bestraft, wer vorsätzlich einem anderen zu dessen vorsätzlich begangener rechtswidriger Tat Hilfe geleistet hat;

Article 121-7 of the French penal code provides:

Est complice d’un crime ou d’un délit la personne qui sciemment, par aide ou assistance, en a facilité la préparation ou la consommation;

Article 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act, 1861, 24 & 25 Vict. c.94 as amended by the Criminal Law Act, 1977, s. 65(4) provides:

Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.
20.
Fain v. Commonwealth, 78 Ky. 183, 39 Am.Rep. 213 (1879); Tift v. State, 17 Ga.App. 663, 88 S.E. 41 (1916); People v. Decina, 2 N.Y.2d 133, 157 N.Y.S.2d 558, 138 N.E.2d 799 (1956); Mason v. State, 603 P.2d 1146 (Okl.Crim.App.1979); State v. Burrell, 135 N.H. 715, 609 A.2d 751 (1992); Bonder v. State, 752 A.2d 1169 (Del.2000).
21.
As did some other definitions, which the most popular of them is “willed muscular movement”. See Herbert L. A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law 101 (1968); Oliver W. Holmes, The Common Law 54 (1881, 1923); Antony Robin Duff, Criminal Attempts 239–263 (1996); John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832, 2000); Gustav Radbruch, Der Handlungsbegriff in seiner Bedeutung für das Strafrechtssystem 75, 98 (1904); Claus Roxin, Strafrecht – Allgemeiner Teil I 239–255 (4 Auf., 2006); BGH 3, 287.
22.
See, e.g., Bolden v. State, 171 S.W.3d 785 (2005); United States v. Meyers, 906 F. Supp. 1494 (1995); United States v. Quaintance, 471 F. Supp.2d 1153 (2006).
23.
Scott T. Noth, A Penny for Your Thoughts: Post-Mitchell Hate Crime Laws Confirm a Mutating Effect upon Our First Amendment and the Government’s Role in Our Lives, 10 Regent U. L. Rev. 167 (1998); Henry Holt, Telekinesis (2005); Pamela Rae Heath, The PK Zone: A Cross-Cultural Review of Psychokinesis (PK) (2003).
24.
John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832, 2000).
25.
Oliver W. Holmes, The Common Law 54 (1881, 1923).
26.
See e.g., People v. Heitzman, 9 Cal.4th 189, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 236, 886 P.2d 1229 (1994); State v. Wilson, 267 Kan. 550, 987 P.2d 1060 (1999).
27.
Rollin M. Perkins, Negative Acts in Criminal Law, 22 Iowa L. Rev. 659 (1937); Graham Hughes, Criminal Omissions, 67 Yale L. J. 590 (1958); Lionel H. Frankel, Criminal Omissions: A Legal Microcosm, 11 Wayne L. Rev. 367 (1965).
28.
P. R. Glazebrook, Criminal Omissions: The Duty Requirement in Offences Against the Person, 55 L. Q. Rev. 386 (1960); Andrew Ashworth, The Scope of Criminal Liability for Omissions, 84 L. Q. Rev. 424, 441 (1989).
29.
Lane v. Commonwealth, 956 S.W.2d 874 (Ky.1997); State v. Jackson, 137 Wash.2d 712, 976 P.2d 1229 (1999); Rachel S. Zahniser, Morally and Legally: A Parent’s Duty to Prevent the Abuse of a Child as Defined by Lane v. Commonwealth, 86 Ky. L. J. 1209 (1998).
30.
Mavji, [1987] 2 All E.R. 758, [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1388, [1986] S.T.C. 508, Cr. App. Rep. 31, [1987] Crim. L.R. 39; Firth, (1990) 91 Cr. App. Rep. 217, 154 J.P. 576, [1990] Crim. L.R. 326.
31.
See, e.g., section 2.01(3) of The American Law Institute, Model Penal Code – Official Draft and Explanatory Notes (1962, 1985).
32.
Gabriel Hallevy, The Matrix of Derivative Criminal Liability 171–184 (2012).
33.
See, e.g., Pierson v. State, 956 P.2d 1119 (Wyo.1998).
34.
See, e.g., State v. Dubina, 164 Conn. 95, 318 A.2d 95 (1972); State v. Bono, 128 N.J.Super. 254, 319 A.2d 762 (1974); State v. Fletcher, 322 N.C. 415, 368 S.E.2d 633 (1988).
35.
S.Z. Feller, Les Délits de Mise en Danger, 40 Rev. Int. de Droit Pénal 179 (1969).
36.
This is the results component of all homicide offenses. See Sir Edward Coke, Institutions of the Laws of England – Third Part 47 (6th ed., 1681, 1817, 2001):

Murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the king’s peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, [so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc die of the wound or hurt, etc within a year and a day after the same].
37.
E.g., legal causation as part of the mental element requirement.
38.
Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 97 S.Ct. 1730, 52 L.Ed.2d 203 (1977); Commonwealth v. Green, 477 Pa. 170, 383 A.2d 877 (1978); State v. Crocker, 431 A.2d 1323 (Me.1981); State v. Martin, 119 N.J. 2, 573 A.2d 1359 (1990).
39.
See, e.g., Wilson v. State, 24 S.W. 409 (Tex.Crim.App.1893); Henderson v. State, 11 Ala.App. 37, 65 So. 721 (1914); Cox v. State, 305 Ark. 244, 808 S.W.2d 306 (1991); People v. Bailey, 451 Mich. 657, 549 N.W.2d 325 (1996).
40.
Morton J. Horwitz, The Rise and Early Progressive Critique of Objective Causation, The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique 471 (David Kairys ed., 3rd ed., 1998); Benge, (1865) 4 F. & F. 504, 176 Eng. Rep. 665; Longbottom, (1849) 3 Cox C. C. 439.
41.
Jane Stapelton, Law, Causation and Common Sense, 8 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 111 (1988).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, Ono Academic College, Kiryat Ono, Israel
Gabriel Hallevy

Authors

Gabriel Hallevy
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hallevy, G. (2015). External Element Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems. In: Liability for Crimes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10124-8_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10124-8_3
Published: 26 September 2014
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-10123-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-10124-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics