Robots, Law and the Retribution Gap

Ethics and Information Technology 18 (4):299–309 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
We are living through an era of increased robotisation. Some authors have already begun to explore the impact of this robotisation on legal rules and practice. In doing so, many highlight potential liability gaps that might arise through robot misbehaviour. Although these gaps are interesting and socially significant, they do not exhaust the possible gaps that might be created by increased robotisation. In this article, I make the case for one of those alternative gaps: the retribution gap. This gap arises from a mismatch between the human desire for retribution and the absence of appropriate subjects of retributive blame. I argue for the potential existence of this gap in an era of increased robotisation; suggest that it is much harder to plug this gap than it is to plug those thus far explored in the literature; and then highlight three important social implications of this gap.
Reprint years
2016
PhilPapers/Archive ID
DANRLA
Revision history
Archival date: 2016-05-11
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Killer Robots.Sparrow, Robert
Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law.Alexander, Larry; Ferzan, Kimberly Kessler & Morse, Stephen J.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2016-05-11

Total views
1,686 ( #1,224 of 47,256 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
254 ( #1,564 of 47,256 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.