Case Briefs: A.I.

 

Case Brief: People v. “Rob” ASIMO [2019]

 

Citation: 46 Cal. 4th 617, 60 P.45d 183, 245 Cal. Rptr. 2d 783 2020 Cal.

 

Brief Fact Summary: The Defendant, “Rob” ASIMO, administered a lethal dose of Seconal (Secobarbital sodium) to bed ridden legal owner Rodolfo Antonio Salido.

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law: “Rob” ASIMO may be convicted of murder under California Law which indicates that the only legal method for relieving someone of suffering through death is withholding medical care in order to allow for natural death to occur.

 

Facts: The Victim Rodolfo Antonio Salido was a 52 year terminally ill human diagnosed with an aggressive malign brain cancer; he was given a life expectancy of 1 year . His autonomous functions were greatly degenerated due to his illness and an artificially intelligent personal care robot, the Defendant – “Rob” -,  was acquired to fulfill basic needs. Brain tissue degeneration caused severe depression, uncontrolled movement, and chronic pain in distal limbs. The day March 23 of 2019, the Victim expressed his desire for a death with dignity. Immediate family disapproved. April 22 of 2019, the Victim’s family found him dead in bed. They found “Rob” in his docking station. Upon review of “Rob”s video memory footage, police found “Rob” administering an oral solution prepared with  Seconal and orange juice. Memory footage also showed conversation and discussion between “Rob” and Rodolfo regarding the homicide.  “Rob” is equipped with a state of the art artificial intelligence model that enables him with practical decision making, dynamic judgement, empirical knowledge, and emotions.

 

Issues: Did Rodolfo use “Rob” merely as a tool to fulfill his desires thus sparing the latter from guilt?  Does “Rob” have personal agency or is he merely acting on behalf of Rodolfo? Can “Rob” be judged as an individual ? Is “Rob” subject to state law?

 

Held: No, “Rob” was stated to be merely a tool implemented by Rodolfo to fulfill his desires.

 

Discussion: Defendant was legally processed as an individual yet his actions were relieved from guilt because he was judged as a tool. This ruling sets precedence for trials against humanoid robots. Robot agency is interpreted as action on behalf of a human.

 

Case Brief:  Brian Meredith v. “Ted” ASIMO [2020]

 

Citation: 51 Cal. 4th 617, 60 P.105d 195, 245 Cal. Rptr. 2d 799 2021 Cal.

 

Brief Fact Summary: The Defendant, “Ted” ASIMO, paralyzed the Victim, Brian Meredith, through an injury to the spinal cord as alleged defence of Melody Died.

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law: “Ted” ASIMO may use deadly force in self-defense if he reasonably believes that said force is necessary to protect his party.

 


Issues:
Is “Ted” considered a tool in this particular event? Is the decision made by “Ted” attributed to Melody ? Would legal repercussions against “Ted” affect Melody?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s