A Feasibility Study of Programmer Use of Necessity as a Defense for Self-Driving Cars Based on the Foundations of Iranian Criminal Law and Precedents Relative to Homicide-by-Necessity in Common Law

Document Type : Academicm and Research

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Tehran.

2 Ph. D. Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Tehran

3 Ph. D. Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Tehran.

10.22091/csiw.2021.5699.1856

Abstract

Developments in transportation industry and computer science have caused the production of cars that do not need human drivers, and instead are driven by artificial intelligence. In this case, the programmer has to predict the situations in which a potential accident is expected previously and provide training to ensure the self-driving cars’ reactions are in compliance with the law. In possible scenarios, which could occur during driving, reacting in compliance with the law is a fundamental challenge that should be settled by lawyers so that the programmer set the self-driving car’s algorithms according to the lawyers’ proposal in a way that probable accidents do not lead to his/her criminal responsibility. Considering this fact, in the present article by using library resources and through a descriptive-analytic method, depiction of potential scenarios, including cases in which the self-driving car is set up to make a choice between hitting two distinct groups of people is dealt with. Finally, paying attention to foundations of domestic law and precedents relative to homicide-by-necessity in common law system, we are seeking to answer these challenges. As such, it is attempted to present the necessary theoretical perspective in order to make Iran’s legal system ready for the entry of self-driving cars and to reduce the risk for designers and investors’ activities in this field through eliminating the criminal responsibility caused by accident of self-driving cars with human based on necessity rule.

Keywords

References

1)      آصفی، محمد مهدی، ۱۳۸۱ش، پیوند اعضای مردگان مغزی، مجله فقه اهل بیت، ش31.
2)      حاجی ده آبادی، محمد علی، ۱۳۷۸ش، قاعده دفع افسد به فاسد و دلالت های حقوقی – جرمشناختی آن، فصلنامه حقوق اسلامی، ش 18.
3)      حسینی شیرازی، سید محمد ، ۱۳۵۹ش، کتاب القصاص، قم، دارالقرآن حکیم.
4)      ------------------- ،۱۴۰۹ق، الفقه، بیروت، دار العلوم،ج89.
5)      حیدری خورمیزی، سید محمد، ۱۳۹۵ش، رویکردی نوین در بررسی قاعده اضطرار با نگاه به موارد رفع تزاحم، فقه و مبانی حقوق، ش 1.
6)      زحیلی، محمد، ۲۰۰۴م،  القواعد الفقهیه علی المذهب الحنفـی والـشافعی، کویت، مجلـس النشر العلمی لجامعة الکویت،چ2.
7)      شاکری، ابوالحسن، علیپور، عادل، ۱۳۹۱ش، حکم قتل عمدی ناشی از اضطرار در حقوق ایران و استرالیا، پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، ش 4.
8)      صادقی، محمد هادی، 1394ش، جرایم علیه اشخاص، تهران، نشر میزان،چ21.
9)      عطازاده، سعید، انصاری، جلال، 1398ش، بازپژوهی مفهوم مسئولیت کیفری هوش مصنوعی (مطالعه موردی خودروهای خودران) در حقوق اسلام، ایران، آمریکا و آلمان، فصلنامه پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب، ش 4.
10)   عطیـه، عـدلان عطیـه، 2007م، موسـوعـة القواعدالفقهیـه، اسـکندریه،  دارالایمان.
11)   کلانتری، کیومرث، جلیل زاده، مرتضی،۱۳۹۲ش،  قتل عمد اضطراری در فقه شیعه، فصلنامه پژوهش های فقه و حقوق اسلامی، ش 31.
12)   محقق داماد، سید مصطفی، ۱۳۹۴ش، قواعد فقه (بخش جزائی)، تهران، مرکز نشر علوم اسلامی،چ32.
13)   مهرپور، حسین، ۱۳۸۷ش، ‌ مجموعه نظریات شورای نگهبان،تهران، نشر دادگستر،ج3.
14)   میر محمد صادقی، حسین، 1398ش، جرایم علیه اشخاص ، تهران، نشر میزان،چ27.
15)   هررینگ، جاناتان، 1396ش، مفاهیم اساسی حقوق کیفری، ترجمه کیومرث کلانتری، رامین نیکخو، مرتضی جلیل‌زاده، تهران، نشر میزان،چ1.
16)  Belay, N. (2015) Robot Ethics and Self-Driving Cars: How Ethical Determinations in Software Will Require a New legal Framework Student Notes. Journal of the Legal Profession, Vol. 40(1), pp. 119–130.
17)Bibbings, Lois S (2014), Binding men: Stories about violence and law in late Victorian England, Abingdon and New York, Routledge.
18)  Bonnefon Jean-François, Shariff Azim, Rawhan Iyad, (2016) “The Social Dilemma of Autonomous Vehicles”, Science, Vol. 352, Issue 6293, pp.1573 - 1576.
19)  Borenstein, J., Herkert, J., & Miller, K. (2017), Self-Driving Cars and Engineering Ethics: The Need for a System Level Analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 25(2). pp. 383-398
20)Cahill, Paul H. Robinson Michael T. (2006), "Law without Justoce: why Criminal Law Doesn’t Give People what they Deserve.", Oxford, Oxford university press.
21)Chinen, Mark ,(2019), Law and Autonomous Machines: The Co-Evolution of Legal Responsibility and Technology. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
22)  Coca Vila, I., (2017), Self-driving Cars in Dilemmatic Situations: An Approach Based on the Theory of Justification in Criminal Law. Criminal Law and Philosophy, Vol. 12(1). pp. 59 - 82.
23)  Cohan, J. A. (2006)., Homicide by Necessity, Chapman Law Review, Vol.10(1), pp. 120-185
24)  Douma, F., & Palodichuk, S. (2012). Criminal Liability Issues Created by Autonomous Vehicles. Santa Clara Law Review, Vol.52, no. 4,  pp. 1157 - 1169.
25)Edmonds, David, (2013). Would you kill the fat man?: The trolley problem and what your answer tells us about right and wrong, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
26)Fletcher, George P ,(2000). Rethinking criminal law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
27)  Filipović, A. (2019), Ethical issues in the fields of artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles, and autonomous weapon systems, pp. 1- 23, available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/634452/EPRS_STU(2020)634452_EN.pdf
28)  Nowak, Peter, The ethical dilemmas of self-driving cars, The Globe and Mail, 02.02.2018, Internet, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globedrive/culure/tvchnology/theethicaldilemmasofselfdrivingcars/article37803470/Accessed On: 04.09.2020.
29)  Paris JJ, Elias-Jones A, (2001), “Do we murder Mary to save Jodie?” An ethical analysis of the separation of the Manchester conjoined twins , Postgraduate Medical Journal,  Vol. 77(911): pp. 593-598.
30)  Parry, J. T. (1999), The Virtue of Necessity: Reshaping Culpability and the Rule of Law. Houston Law Review, Vol. 36(2), pp. 397–469.
31)  Philip Shenon & Christopher Marquis, Miscommunication Left Pilots Without Order on Downing Jets, (2004) N.Y. TIMES, June 18 at A1, A17.
32)  Santoni de Sio, F. (2017), Killing by Autonomous Vehicles and the Legal Doctrine of Necessity. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 20, no. 2 , pp. 411- 429
33)  Plumber, Brad, "Nine facts about terrorism in the United States since 9/11". The Washington Post. September 11, 2013. Archived from the original on October 31, 2017.Retrieved september 29,2020: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/09/11/nine-facts-about-terrorism-in-the-united-states-since-911.
34)  Wachter, Sandra, Brent Mittelstadt, and Luciano Floridi, 2017), "Transparent, explainable, and accountable AI for robotics, Science Robotic, Vol. 2, Issue 6.
35)  World Briefing (2004), Germany: New Air Security Law, N.Y. TIMES, June 19, at A4.
36)  World Briefing (2005), Poland: Law Allows Hijacked Planes to be Shot Down, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 14, at A12.
37)  Vitt, M. (2016), A Drive for Change – The Ethical Dilemmas of Autonomous Cars. Essai, Vol. 14. no. 38. pp. 139 - 142.
 
 
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics