Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Negative Fault Elements and Artificial Intelligence Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Liability for Crimes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems

Abstract

Negative fault elements are defenses, in which the court is bound to consider when imposing criminal liability upon the defendant, if claimed. Defenses in criminal law are complementary to the mental element requirement. Both deal with the offender’s fault concerning the commission of the offense. The mental element requirement is the positive aspect of fault (what should be in the offender’s mind during the commission of the offense), whereas the general defenses are the negative aspect of fault (what should not be in the offender’s mind during the commission of the offense).

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)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law 157–158, 202 (5th ed., 2006).

  2. 2.

    Reuven Yaron, The Laws of Eshnunna 265, 283 (2nd ed., 1988).

  3. 3.

    Compare Kent Greenawalt, Distinguishing Justifications from Excuses, 49 Law & Contemp. Probs. 89 (1986); Kent Greenawalt, The Perplexing Borders of Justification and Excuse, 84 Colum. L. Rev. 1897 (1984); George P. Fletcher, Rethinking Criminal Law 759–817 (1978, 2000).

  4. 4.

    Compare Paul H. Robinson, A Theory of Justification: Societal Harm as a Prerequisite for Criminal Liability, 23 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 266 (1975); Paul H. Robinson, Testing Competing Theories of Justification, 76 N.C. L. Rev. 1095 (1998); George P. Fletcher, The Nature of Justification, Action and Value in Criminal Law 175 (Stephen Shute, John Gardner and Jeremy Horder eds., 2003).

  5. 5.

    Above at Sect. 5.1.

  6. 6.

    Rudolph Sohm, The Institutes of Roman Law 219 (3rd ed., 1907).

  7. 7.

    See, e.g., Minn. Stat. §9913 (1927); Mont. Rev. Code §10729 (1935); N.Y. Penal Code §816 (1935); Okla. Stat. §152 (1937); Utah Rev. Stat. 103-i-40 (1933).

  8. 8.

    State v. George, 20 Del. 57, 54 A. 745 (1902); Heilman v. Commonwealth, 84 Ky. 457, 1 S.W. 731 (1886); State v. Aaron, 4 N.J.L. 269 (1818).

  9. 9.

    State v. Dillon, 93 Idaho 698, 471 P.2d 553 (1970); State v. Jackson, 346 Mo. 474, 142 S.W.2d 45 (1940).

  10. 10.

    See Godfrey v. State, 31 Ala. 323 (1858); Martin v. State, 90 Ala. 602, 8 So. 858 (1891); State v. J.P.S., 135 Wash.2d 34, 954 P.2d 894 (1998); Beason v. State, 96 Miss. 165, 50 So. 488 (1909); State v. Nickelson, 45 La.Ann. 1172, 14 So. 134 (1893); Commonwealth v. Mead, 92 Mass. 398 (1865); Willet v. Commonwealth, 76 Ky. 230 (1877); Scott v. State, 71 Tex.Crim.R. 41, 158 S.W. 814 (1913); Price v. State, 50 Tex.Crim.R. 71, 94 S.W. 901 (1906).

  11. 11.

    Adams v. State, 8 Md.App. 684, 262 A.2d 69 (1970):

    the most modern definition of the test is simply that the surrounding circumstances must demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the individual knew what he was doing and that it was wrong.

  12. 12.

    A.W.G. Kean, The History of the Criminal Liability of Children, 53 L. Q. Rev. 364 (1937).

  13. 13.

    Andrew Walkover, The Infancy Defense in the New Juvenile Court, 31 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 503 (1984); Keith Foren, Casenote: In Re Tyvonne M. Revisited: The Criminal Infancy Defense in Connecticut, 18 Q. L. Rev. 733 (1999).

  14. 14.

    Frederick J. Ludwig, Rationale of Responsibility for Young Offenders, 29 Neb. L. Rev. 521 (1950); In re Tyvonne, 211 Conn. 151, 558 A.2d 661 (1989).

  15. 15.

    In Bratty v. Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, [1963] A.C. 386, 409, [1961] 3 All E.R. 523, [1961] 3 W.L.R. 965, 46 Cr. App. Rep 1, Lord Denning noted:

    The requirement that it should be a voluntary act is essential, not only in a murder case, but also in every criminal case. No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily.

    State v. Mishne, 427 A.2d 450 (Me.1981); State v. Case, 672 A.2d 586 (Me.1996).

  16. 16.

    See, e.g., People v. Newton, 8 Cal.App.3d 359, 87 Cal.Rptr. 394 (1970).

  17. 17.

    Kenneth L. Campbell, Psychological Blow Automatism: A Narrow Defence, 23 Crim. L. Q. 342 (1981); Winifred H. Holland, Automatism and Criminal Responsibility, 25 Crim. L. Q. 95 (1982).

  18. 18.

    People v. Higgins, 5 N.Y.2d 607, 186 N.Y.S.2d 623, 159 N.E.2d 179 (1959); State v. Welsh, 8 Wash.App. 719, 508 P.2d 1041 (1973).

  19. 19.

    Reed v. State, 693 N.E.2d 988 (Ind.App.1998).

  20. 20.

    Quick, [1973] Q.B. 910, [1973] 3 All E.R. 347, [1973] 3 W.L.R. 26, 57 Cr. App. Rep. 722, 137 J.P. 763; C, [2007] E.W.C.A. Crim. 1862, [2007] All E.R. (D) 91.

  21. 21.

    Fain v. Commonwealth, 78 Ky. 183 (1879); Bradley v. State, 102 Tex.Crim.R. 41, 277 S.W. 147 (1926); Norval Morris, Somnambulistic Homicide: Ghosts, Spiders, and North Koreans, 5 Res Judicatae 29 (1951).

  22. 22.

    McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104 (Ind.1997).

  23. 23.

    People v. Newton, 8 Cal.App.3d 359, 87 Cal.Rptr. 394 (1970); Read v. People, 119 Colo. 506, 205 P.2d 233 (1949); Carter v. State, 376 P.2d 351 (Okl.Crim.App.1962).

  24. 24.

    People v. Wilson, 66 Cal.2d 749, 59 Cal.Rptr. 156, 427 P.2d 820 (1967); People v. Lisnow, 88 Cal.App.3d Supp. 21, 151 Cal.Rptr. 621 (1978); Lawrence Taylor and Katharina Dalton, Premenstrual Syndrome: A New Criminal Defense?, 19 Cal. W. L. Rev. 269 (1983); Michael J. Davidson, Feminine Hormonal Defenses: Premenstrual Syndrome and Postpartum Psychosis, 2000 Army Lawyer 5 (2000).

  25. 25.

    Government of the Virgin Islands v. Smith, 278 F.2d 169 (3rd Cir.1960); People v. Freeman, 61 Cal.App.2d 110, 142 P.2d 435 (1943); State v. Hinkle, 200 W.Va. 280, 489 S.E.2d 257 (1996).

  26. 26.

    State v. Gish, 17 Idaho 341, 393 P.2d 342 (1964); Evans v. State, 322 Md. 24, 585 A.2d 204 (1991); State v. Jenner, 451 N.W.2d 710 (S.D.1990); Lester v. State, 212 Tenn. 338, 370 S.W.2d 405 (1963); Polston v. State, 685 P.2d 1 (Wyo.1984).

  27. 27.

    Richard Delgado, Ascription of Criminal States of Mind: Toward a Defense Theory for the Coercively Persuaded (“Brainwashed”) Defendant, 63 Minn. L. Rev. 1 (1978); Joshua Dressler, Professor Delgado’s “Brainwashing” Defense: Courting a Determinist Legal System, 63 Minn. L. Rev. 335 (1978).

  28. 28.

    Francis Antony Whitlock, Criminal Responsibility and Mental Illness 119–120 (1963).

  29. 29.

    RG 60, 29; RG 73, 177; VRS 23, 212; VRS 46, 440; VRS 61, 339; VRS 64, 189; DAR 1985, 387; BGH 2, 14; BGH 17, 259; BGH 21, 381.

  30. 30.

    Karl Menninger, Martin Mayman and Paul Pruyser, The Vital Balance 420–489 (1963); George Mora, Historical and Theoretical Trends in Psychiatry, 1 Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry 1, 8–19 (Alfred M. Freedman, Harold Kaplan and Benjamin J. Sadock eds., 2nd ed., 1975).

  31. 31.

    Michael Moore, Law and Psychiatry: Rethinking the Relationship 64–65 (1984); Anthony Platt and Bernard L. Diamond, The Origins of the “Right and Wrong” Test of Criminal Responsibility and Its Subsequent Development in the United States: An Historical Survey, 54 Cal. L. Rev. 1227 (1966).

  32. 32.

    Sander L. Gilman, Seeing the Insane (1982); John Biggs, The Guilty Mind 26 (1955).

  33. 33.

    Walter Bromberg, From Shaman to Psychotherapist: A History of the Treatment of Mental Illness 63 (1975); George Rosen, Madness in Society: Chapters in the Historical Sociology of Mental Illness 33, 82 (1969); Edward Norbeck, Religion in Primitive Society 215 (1961).

  34. 34.

    James Cowles Prichard, A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind (1835); Arthur E. Fink, Causes of Crime: Biological Theories in the United States, 1800–1915 48–76 (1938); Janet A. Tighe, Francis Wharton and the Nineteenth Century Insanity Defense: The Origins of a Reform Tradition, 27 Am. J. Legal Hist. 223 (1983).

  35. 35.

    Peter McCandless, Liberty and Lunacy: The Victorians and Wrongful Confinement, Madhouses, Mad-doctors, and Madmen: The Social History of Psychiatry in the Victorian Era 339, 354 (Scull ed., 1981); Vieda Skultans, English Madness: Ideas on Insanity, 1580–1890 69–97 (1979); Michel Foucault, Madness and Civilization 24 (1965).

  36. 36.

    Seymour L. Halleck, The Historical and Ethical Antecedents of Psychiatric Criminology, Psychiatric Aspects of Criminology 8 (Halleck and Bromberg eds., 1968); Franz Alexander and Hugo Staub, The Criminal, The Judge, and the Public 24–25 (1931); Franz Alexander, Our Age of Unreason: A Study of the Irrational Forces in Social Life (rev. ed., 1971).

  37. 37.

    Homer D. Crotty, The History of Insanity as a Defence to Crime in English Common Law, 12 Cal. L. Rev. 105, 107–108 (1924).

  38. 38.

    M’Naghten, (1843) 10 Cl. & Fin. 200, 8 E.R. 718.

  39. 39.

    Oxford, (1840) 9 Car. & P. 525, 173 E.R. 941.

  40. 40.

    United States v. Freeman, 357 F.2d 606 (2nd Cir.1966); United States v. Currens, 290 F.2d 751 (3rd Cir.1961); United States v. Chandler, 393 F.2d 920 (4th Cir.1968); Blake v. United States, 407 F.2d 908 (5th Cir.1969); United States v. Smith, 404 F.2d 720 (6th Cir.1968); United States v. Shapiro, 383 F.2d 680 (7th Cir.1967); Pope v. United States, 372 F.2d 710 (8th Cir.1970).

  41. 41.

    Commonwealth v. Herd, 413 Mass. 834, 604 N.E.2d 1294 (1992); State v. Curry, 45 Ohio St.3d 109, 543 N.E.2d 1228 (1989); State v. Barrett, 768 A.2d 929 (R.I.2001); State v. Lockhart, 208 W.Va. 622, 542 S.E.2d 443 (2000). See also 18 U.S.C.A. §17.

  42. 42.

    The American Law Institute, Model Penal Code – Official Draft and Explanatory Notes 61–62 (1962, 1985):

    (1) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law;

    (2) As used in this Article, the terms ‘mental disease or defect’ do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

  43. 43.

    State v. Elsea, 251 S.W.2d 650 (Mo.1952); State v. Johnson, 233 Wis. 668, 290 N.W. 159 (1940); State v. Hadley, 65 Utah 109, 234 P. 940 (1925); Henry Weihofen, Mental Disorder as a Criminal Defense 119 (1954); K. W. M. Fulford, Value, Action, Mental Illness, and the Law, Action and Value in Criminal Law 279 (Stephen Shute, John Gardner and Jeremy Horder eds., 2003).

  44. 44.

    People v. Sommers, 200 P.3d 1089 (2008); McNeil v. United States, 933 A.2d 354 (2007); Rangel v. State, 2009 Tex.App. 1555 (2009); Commonwealth v. Shumway, 72 Va.Cir. 481 (2007).

  45. 45.

    R. U. Singh, History of the Defence of Drunkenness in English Criminal Law, 49 Law Q. Rev. 528 (1933).

  46. 46.

    Theodori Liber Poenitentialis, III, 13 (668–690).

  47. 47.

    Francis Bowes Sayre, Mens Rea, 45 Harv. L. Rev. 974, 1014–1015 (1932).

  48. 48.

    William Oldnall Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanors 8 (1843, 1964).

  49. 49.

    Marshall, (1830) 1 Lewin 76, 168 E.R. 965.

  50. 50.

    Pearson, (1835) 2 Lewin 144, 168 E.R. 1108; Thomas, (1837) 7 Car. & P. 817, 173 E.R. 356:

    Drunkenness may be taken into consideration in cases where what the law deems sufficient provocation has been given, because the question is, in such cases, whether the fatal act is to be attributed to the passion of anger excited by the previous provocation, and that passion is more easily excitable in a person when in a state of intoxication than when he is sober.

  51. 51.

    Meakin, (1836) 7 Car. & P. 297, 173 E.R. 131; Meade, [1909] 1 K.B. 895; Pigman v. State, 14 Ohio 555 (1846); People v. Harris, 29 Cal. 678 (1866); People v. Townsend, 214 Mich. 267, 183 N.W. 177 (1921).

  52. 52.

    Derrick Augustus Carter, Bifurcations of Consciousness: The Elimination of the Self-Induced Intoxication Excuse, 64 Mo. L. Rev. 383 (1999); Jerome Hall, Intoxication and Criminal Responsibility, 57 Harv. L. Rev. 1045 (1944); Monrad G. Paulsen, Intoxication as a Defense to Crime, 1961 U. Ill. L. F. 1 (1961).

  53. 53.

    State v. Cameron, 104 N.J. 42, 514 A.2d 1302 (1986); State v. Smith, 260 Or. 349, 490 P.2d 1262 (1971); People v. Leonardi, 143 N.Y. 360, 38 N.E. 372 (1894); Tate v. Commonwealth, 258 Ky. 685, 80 S.W.2d 817 (1935); Roberts v. People, 19 Mich. 401 (1870); People v. Kirst, 168 N.Y. 19, 60 N.E. 1057 (1901); State v. Robinson, 20 W.Va. 713, 43 Am.Rep. 799 (1882).

  54. 54.

    Addison M. Bowman, Narcotic Addiction and Criminal Responsibility under Durham, 53 Geo. L. J. 1017 (1965); Herbert Fingarette, Addiction and Criminal Responsibility, 84 Yale L. J. 413 (1975); Lionel H. Frankel, Narcotic Addiction, Criminal Responsibility and Civil Commitment, 1966 Utah L. Rev. 581 (1966); Peter Barton Hutt and Richard A. Merrill, Criminal Responsibility and the Right to Treatment for Intoxication and Alcoholism, 57 Geo. L. J. 835 (1969).

  55. 55.

    Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 88 S.Ct. 2145, 20 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1968); United States v. Moore, 486 F.2d 1139 (D.C.Cir.1973); State v. Herro, 120 Ariz. 604, 587 P.2d 1181 (1978); State v. Smith, 219 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 1974); People v. Davis, 33 N.Y.2d 221, 351 N.Y.S.2d 663, 306 N.E.2d 787 (1973).

  56. 56.

    William G. Lycan, Introduction, Mind and Cognition 3–13 (William G. Lycan ed., 1990).

  57. 57.

    Edwin R. Keedy, Ignorance and Mistake in the Criminal Law, 22 Harv. L. Rev. 75, 78 (1909); Levett, (1638) Cro. Car. 538.

  58. 58.

    State v. Silveira, 198 Conn. 454, 503 A.2d 599 (1986); State v. Molin, 288 N.W.2d 232 (Minn.1979); State v. Sexton, 160 N.J. 93, 733 A.2d 1125 (1999).

  59. 59.

    State v. Sawyer, 95 Conn. 34, 110 A. 461 (1920); State v. Cude, 14 Utah 2d 287, 383 P.2d 399 (1963); Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 114 S.Ct. 655, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994); Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 111 S.Ct. 604, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991); Richard H. S. Tur, Subjectivism and Objectivism: Towards Synthesis, Action and Value in Criminal Law 213 (Stephen Shute, John Gardner and Jeremy Horder eds., 2003).

  60. 60.

    United States v. Lampkins, 4 U.S.C.M.A. 31, 15 C.M.R. 31 (1954).

  61. 61.

    People v. Vogel, 46 Cal.2d 798, 299 P.2d 850 (1956); Long v. State, 44 Del. 262, 65 A.2d 489 (1949).

  62. 62.

    Fernand N. Dutile and Harold F. Moore, Mistake and Impossibility: Arranging Marriage Between Two Difficult Partners, 74 Nw. U. L. Rev. 166 (1980).

  63. 63.

    Douglas Husak and Andrew von Hirsch, Culpability and Mistake of Law, Action and Value in Criminal Law 157, 161–167 (Stephen Shute, John Gardner and Jeremy Horder eds., 2003).

  64. 64.

    Digesta, 22.6.9: “juris quidam ignorantiam cuique nocere, facti vero ignorantiam non nocere”.

  65. 65.

    See, e.g., Brett v. Rigden, (1568) 1 Plowd. 340, 75 E.R. 516; Mildmay, (1584) 1 Co. Rep. 175a, 76 E.R. 379; Manser, (1584) 2 Co. Rep. 3, 76 E.R. 392; Vaux, (1613) 1 Blustrode 197, 80 E.R. 885; Bailey, (1818) Russ. & Ry. 341, 168 E.R. 835; Esop, (1836) 7 Car. & P. 456, 173 E.R. 203; Crawshaw, (1860) Bell. 303, 169 E.R. 1271; Schuster v. State, 48 Ala. 199 (1872).

  66. 66.

    Forbes, (1835) 7 Car. & P. 224, 173 E.R. 99; Parish, (1837) 8 Car. & P. 94, 173 E.R. 413; Allday, (1837) 8 Car. & P. 136, 173 E.R. 431; Dotson v. State, 6 Cold. 545 (1869); Cutter v. State, 36 N.J.L. 125 (1873); Squire v. State, 46 Ind. 459 (1874).

  67. 67.

    State v. Goodenow, 65 Me. 30 (1876); State v. Whitoomb, 52 Iowa 85, 2 N.W. 970 (1879).

  68. 68.

    Lutwin v. State, 97 N.J.L. 67, 117 A. 164 (1922); State v. Whitman, 116 Fla. 196, 156 So. 705 (1934); United States v. Mancuso, 139 F.2d 90 (3rd Cir.1943); State v. Chicago, M. & St.P.R. Co., 130 Minn. 144, 153 N.W. 320 (1915); Coal & C.R. v. Conley, 67 W.Va. 129, 67 S.E. 613 (1910); State v. Striggles, 202 Iowa 1318, 210 N.W. 137 (1926); United States v. Albertini, 830 F.2d 985 (9th Cir.1987).

  69. 69.

    State v. Sheedy, 125 N.H. 108, 480 A.2d 887 (1984); People v. Ferguson, 134 Cal.App. 41, 24 P.2d 965 (1933); Andrew Ashworth, Testing Fidelity to Legal Values: Official Involvement and Criminal Justice, 63 Mod. L. Rev. 663 (2000); Glanville Williams, The Draft Code and Reliance upon Official Statements, 9 Legal Stud. 177 (1989).

  70. 70.

    Rollin M. Perkins, Ignorance and Mistake in Criminal Law, 88 U. Pa. L. Rev. 35 (1940).

  71. 71.

    Above at Sect. 5.1.

  72. 72.

    Chas E. George, Limitation of Police Powers, 12 Law. & Banker & S. Bench & B. Rev. 740 (1919); Kam C. Wong, Police Powers and Control in the People’s Republic of China: The History of Shoushen, 10 Colum. J. Asian L. 367 (1996); John S. Baker Jr., State Police Powers and the Federalization of Local Crime, 72 Temp. L. Rev. 673 (1999).

  73. 73.

    Dolores A. Donovan and Stephanie M. Wildman, Is the Reasonable Man Obsolete? A Critical Perspective on Self-Defense and Provocation, 14 Loy. L. A. L. Rev. 435, 441 (1981); Joshua Dressler, Rethinking Heat of Passion: A Defense in Search of a Rationale, 73 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 421, 444–450 (1982); Kent Greenawalt, The Perplexing Borders of Justification and Excuse, 84 Colum. L. Rev. 1897, 1898, 1915–1919 (1984).

  74. 74.

    State v. Brosnan, 221 Conn. 788, 608 A.2d 49 (1992); State v. Gallagher, 191 Conn. 433, 465 A.2d 323 (1983); State v. Nelson, 329 N.W.2d 643 (Iowa 1983); State v. Farley, 225 Kan. 127, 587 P.2d 337 (1978).

  75. 75.

    Commonwealth v. Monico, 373 Mass. 298, 366 N.E.2d 1241 (1977); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 412 Mass. 368, 589 N.E.2d 311 (1992); Duckett v. State, 966 P.2d 941 (Wyo.1998); People v. Young, 11 N.Y.2d 274, 229 N.Y.S.2d 1, 183 N.E.2d 319 (1962); Batson v. State, 113 Nev. 669, 941 P.2d 478 (1997); State v. Wenger, 58 Ohio St.2d 336, 390 N.E.2d 801 (1979); Moore v. State, 25 Okl.Crim. 118, 218 P. 1102 (1923).

  76. 76.

    Williams v. State, 70 Ga.App. 10, 27 S.E.2d 109 (1943); State v. Totman, 80 Mo.App. 125 (1899).

  77. 77.

    Lawson, [1986] V.R. 515; Daniel v. State, 187 Ga. 411, 1 S.E.2d 6 (1939).

  78. 78.

    John Barker Waite, The Law of Arrest, 24 Tex. L. Rev. 279 (1946).

  79. 79.

    People v. Williams, 56 Ill.App.2d 159, 205 N.E.2d 749 (1965); People v. Minifie, 13 Cal.4th 1055, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 133, 920 P.2d 1337 (1996); State v. Coffin, 128 N.M. 192, 991 P.2d 477 (1999).

  80. 80.

    State Philbrick, 402 A.2d 59 (Me.1979); State v. Havican, 213 Conn. 593, 569 A.2d 1089 (1990); State v. Harris, 222 N.W.2d 462 (Iowa 1974); Judith Fabricant, Homicide in Response to a Threat of Rape: A Theoretical Examination of the Rule of Justification, 11 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 945 (1981).

  81. 81.

    Celia Wells, Battered Woman Syndrome and Defences to Homicide: Where Now?, 14 Legal Stud. 266 (1994); Aileen McColgan, In Defence of Battered Women who Kill, 13 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 508 (1993); Joshua Dressler, Battered Women Who Kill Their Sleeping Tormenters: Reflections on Maintaining Respect for Human Life while Killing Moral Monsters, Criminal Law Theory – Doctrines of the General Part 259 (Stephen Shute and A. P. Simester eds., 2005).

  82. 82.

    State v. Moore, 158 N.J. 292, 729 A.2d 1021 (1999); State v. Robinson, 132 Ohio App.3d 830, 726 N.E.2d 581 (1999).

  83. 83.

    Lawrence B. Solum, Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences, 70 N.C. L. Rev. 1231, 1255–1258 (1992).

  84. 84.

    Isaac Asimov, I, Robot 40 (1950).

  85. 85.

    See, e.g., United States v. Allegheny Bottling Company, 695 F.Supp. 856 (1988); John C. Coffee, Jr., “No Soul to Damn: No Body to Kick”: An Unscandalised Inquiry into the Problem of Corporate Punishment, 79 Mich. L. Rev. 386 (1981).

  86. 86.

    Judith Jarvis Thomson, Rights, Restitution and Risk: Essays in Moral Theory 33–48 (1986); Sanford Kadish, Respect for Life and Regard for Rights in the Criminal Law, 64 Cal. L. Rev. 871 (1976); Patrick Montague, Self-Defense and Choosing Between Lives, 40 Phil. Stud. 207 (1981); Cheyney C. Ryan, Self-Defense, Pacificism, and the Possibility of Killing, 93 Ethics 508 (1983).

  87. 87.

    Above at Sect. 5.2.2.1.

  88. 88.

    See, e.g., United States v. Holmes, 26 F. Cas. 360, 1 Wall. Jr. 1 (1842); Dudley and Stephens, [1884] 14 Q.B. D. 273.

  89. 89.

    W. H. Hitchler, Necessity as a Defence in Criminal Cases, 33 Dick. L. Rev. 138 (1929).

  90. 90.

    Edward B. Arnolds and Norman F. Garland, The Defense of Necessity in Criminal Law: The Right to Choose the Lesser Evil, 65 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 289 (1974); Lawrence P. Tiffany and Carl A. Anderson, Legislating the Necessity Defense in Criminal Law, 52 Denv. L. J. 839 (1975); Rollin M. Perkins, Impelled Perpetration Restated, 33 Hastings L. J. 403 (1981).

  91. 91.

    Long v. Commonwealth, 23 Va.App. 537, 478 S.E.2d 324 (1996); State v. Crocker, 506 A.2d 209 (Me.1986); Humphrey v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 36, 553 S.E.2d 546 (2001); United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483, 121 S.Ct. 1711, 149 L.Ed.2d 722 (2001); United States v. Kabat, 797 F.2d 580 (8th Cir.1986); McMillan v. City of Jackson, 701 So.2d 1105 (Miss.1997).

  92. 92.

    Benjamin Thorpe, Ancient Laws and Institutes of England 47–49 (1840, 2004); Reniger v. Fogossa, (1551) 1 Plowd. 1, 75 E.R. 1, 18; Mouse, (1608) 12 Co. Rep. 63, 77 E.R. 1341; Michael Dalton, The Countrey Justice ch. 150 (1618, 2003).

  93. 93.

    United States v. Randall, 104 Wash.D.C.Rep. 2249 (D.C.Super.1976); State v. Hastings, 118 Idaho 854, 801 P.2d 563 (1990); People v. Whipple, 100 Cal.App. 261, 279 P. 1008 (1929); United States v. Paolello, 951 F.2d 537 (3rd Cir.1991).

  94. 94.

    Commonwealth v. Weaver, 400 Mass. 612, 511 N.E.2d 545 (1987); Nelson v. State, 597 P.2d 977 (Alaska 1979); City of Chicago v. Mayer, 56 Ill.2d 366, 308 N.E.2d 601 (1974); State v. Kee, 398 A.2d 384 (Me.1979); State v. Caswell, 771 A.2d 375 (Me.2001); State v. Jacobs, 371 So.2d 801 (La.1979); Anthony M. Dillof, Unraveling Unknowing Justification, 77 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1547 (2002).

  95. 95.

    United States v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 100 S.Ct. 624, 62 L.Ed.2d 575 (1980); Hunt v. State, 753 So.2d 609 (Fla.App.2000); State v. Anthuber, 201 Wis.2d 512, 549 N.W.2d 477 (App.1996).

  96. 96.

    State v. Fee, 126 N.H. 78, 489 A.2d 606 (1985); United States v. Sued-Jimenez, 275 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2001); United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427 (9th Cir.1985); State v. Marley, 54 Haw. 450, 509 P.2d 1095 (1973); State v. Dansinger, 521 A.2d 685 (Me.1987); State v. Champa, 494 A.2d 102 (R.I.1985); Wilson v. State, 777 S.W.2d 823 (Tex.App.1989); State v. Cram, 157 Vt. 466, 600 A.2d 733 (1991).

  97. 97.

    United States v. Maxwell, 254 F.3d 21 (1st Cir.2001); Andrews v. People, 800 P.2d 607 (Colo.1990); State v. Howley, 128 Idaho 874, 920 P.2d 391 (1996); State v. Dansinger, 521 A.2d 685 (Me.1987); Commonwealth v. Leno, 415 Mass. 835, 616 N.E.2d 453 (1993); Commonwealth v. Lindsey, 396 Mass. 840, 489 N.E.2d 666 (1986); People v. Craig, 78 N.Y.2d 616, 578 N.Y.S.2d 471, 585 N.E.2d 783 (1991); State v. Warshow, 138 Vt. 22, 410 A.2d 1000 (1979).

  98. 98.

    Above at Sect. 5.2.2.1.

  99. 99.

    Ibid.

  100. 100.

    John Lawrence Hill, A Utilitarian Theory of Duress, 84 Iowa L. Rev. 275 (1999); Rollin M. Perkins, Impelled Perpetration Restated, 33 Hastings L. J. 403 (1981); United States v. Johnson, 956 F.2d 894 (9th Cir.1992); Sanders v. State, 466 N.E.2d 424 (Ind.1984); State v. Daoud, 141 N.H. 142, 679 A.2d 577 (1996); Alford v. State, 866 S.W.2d 619 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).

  101. 101.

    McGrowther, (1746) 18 How. St. Tr. 394.

  102. 102.

    United States v. LaFleur, 971 F.2d 200 (9th Cir.1991); Hunt v. State, 753 So.2d 609 (Fla.App.2000); Taylor v. State, 158 Miss. 505, 130 So. 502 (1930); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 688 P.2d 769 (1984); State v. Nargashian, 26 R.I. 299, 58 A. 953 (1904); State v. Rocheville, 310 S.C. 20, 425 S.E.2d 32 (1993); Arp v. State, 97 Ala. 5, 12 So. 301 (1893).

  103. 103.

    State v. Nargashian, 26 R.I. 299, 58 A. 953 (1904).

  104. 104.

    People v. Merhige, 212 Mich. 601, 180 N.W. 418 (1920); People v. Pantano, 239 N.Y. 416, 146 N.E. 646 (1925); Tully v. State, 730 P.2d 1206 (Okl.Crim.App.1986); Pugliese v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 82, 428 S.E.2d 16 (1993).

  105. 105.

    United States v. Bakhtiari, 913 F.2d 1053 (2nd Cir.1990); R.I. Recreation Center v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 177 F.2d 603 (1st Cir.1949); Sam v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 312, 411 S.E.2d 832 (1991).

  106. 106.

    Commonwealth v. Perl, 50 Mass.App.Ct. 445, 737 N.E.2d 937 (2000); United States v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691 (9th Cir.1984); State v. Ellis, 232 Or. 70, 374 P.2d 461 (1962); State v. Torphy, 78 Mo.App. 206 (1899).

  107. 107.

    People v. Richards, 269 Cal.App.2d 768, 75 Cal.Rptr. 597 (1969); United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 100 S.Ct. 624, 62 L.Ed.2d 575 (1980); United States v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 846 (9th Cir.1996); United States v. Arthurs, 73 F.3d 444 (1st Cir.1996); United States v. Lee, 694 F.2d 649 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Campbell, 675 F.2d 815 (6th Cir.1982); State v. Daoud, 141 N.H. 142, 679 A.2d 577 (1996).

  108. 108.

    United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 100 S.Ct. 624, 62 L.Ed.2d 575 (1980); People v. Handy, 198 Colo. 556, 603 P.2d 941 (1979); State v. Reese, 272 N.W.2d 863 (Iowa 1978); State v. Reed, 205 Neb. 45, 286 N.W.2d 111 (1979).

  109. 109.

    Fitzpatrick, [1977] N.I. 20; Hasan, [2005] U.K.H.L. 22, [2005] 4 All E.R. 685, [2005] 2 Cr. App. Rep. 314, [2006] Crim. L.R. 142, [2005] All E.R. (D) 299.

  110. 110.

    Above at Sects. 5.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.2.

  111. 111.

    Michael A. Musmanno, Are Subordinate Officials Penally Responsible for Obeying Superior Orders which Direct Commission of Crime?, 67 Dick. L. Rev. 221 (1963).

  112. 112.

    Axtell, (1660) 84 E.R. 1060; Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir.1975); United States v. Calley, 48 C.M.R. 19, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 534 (1973).

  113. 113.

    A. P. Rogers, Law on the Battlefield 143–147 (1996).

  114. 114.

    Jurco v. State, 825 P.2d 909 (Alaska App.1992); State v. Stoehr, 134 Wis.2d 66, 396 N.W.2d 177 (1986).

  115. 115.

    See, e.g., at Sects. 5.2.2.1, 5.2.2.2, and 5.2.2.3.

  116. 116.

    Vashon R. Rogers Jr., De Minimis Non Curat Lex, 21 Albany L. J. 186 (1880); Max L. Veech and Charles R. Moon, De Minimis non Curat Lex, 45 Mich. L. Rev. 537 (1947).

  117. 117.

    The American Law Institute, Model Penal Code – Official Draft and Explanatory Notes 40 (1962, 1985).

  118. 118.

    Stanislaw Pomorski, On Multiculturalism, Concepts of Crime, and the “De Minimis” Defense, 1997 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 51 (1997).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Ono Academic College, Kiryat Ono, Israel

    Gabriel Hallevy

Authors
  1. Gabriel Hallevy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hallevy, G. (2015). Negative Fault Elements and Artificial Intelligence Systems. In: Liability for Crimes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10124-8_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation