In an era where technology is rapidly advancing, the integration of robots into our

daily lives has become a reality. While these machines offer numerous benefits,
there is a growing concern about the potential harm they may cause. In such
cases, it is only fair to place blame on the government.

Governments at all levels are using AI and Automated decision-making systems to

expand or replace law enforcement functions, assist in public benefit decisions,
and intake public complaints and comments. The use of these systems is poorly
regulated and largely opaque.
Although the adoption of AI by federal government is growing—a February 2020
report found that nearly half of the 142 federal agencies studied had
“experimented with AI and related machine learning tools”—many of the AI tools
procured by government agencies have proven to be deeply flawed.
It could get more complicated if the robot stops working as intended and
accidentally harms someone through no fault of the operator. If the victim or her
family sues, there could be issues about whether to hold the manufacturer, the
police department or both responsible.

Example:
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to allow its police department to
use robots to kill suspected criminals. The decision was met with both praise and
incredulity. The decision came six years after Dallas police outfitted a robot with
explosives to end a standoff with a sniper who had killed five officers. The Dallas
incident is believed to be the first time someone was intentionally killed in the
U.S. by a robot.

Let us first look at the question of whether the law can treat Intelligent Agents as
entities Subject to criminal punishment. In the past, this was primarily an issue for
science fiction Novels and movies. But with the advent of autonomous, self-
guided robots, it may well be That Intelligent Agents are no less “responsible” for
their actions than human beings are.
The issue of a robot’s potential responsibility leads us back to the fundamental
question of What it means to be a “person”. Philosophers have long debated this
question and have come To different conclusions. One approach has based
personhood on the capacity for self-reflection. John Locke, for example, wrote
that an “intelligent Agent”, meaning a human Person, must be “capable of a Law,
and Happiness and Misery”. Such an agent, moreover, Must have a consciousness
of his own past: “This personality extends itself beyond present
Existence to what is past, only by consciousness, – whereby it becomes concerned
and Accountable; owns and imputes to itself past actions, just upon the same
ground and for the Same reason as it does the present. “Immanuel Kant similarly
emphasized the importance of Self-consciousness: since man is conscious of
himself, he understands his own freedom and knows that his own will is the
cause of each of his acts. For that reason, a person knows that

Example (2)

The fact that robots, especially self-driving cars, have become part of our daily
lives raises Novel issues in criminal law. Robots can malfunction and cause serious
harm. But as things Stand today, they are not suitable recipients of criminal
punishment, mainly because they Cannot conceive of themselves as morally
responsible agents and because they cannot .Understand the concept of
retributive punishment. Humans who produce, program, market and employ
robots are subject to criminal liability for intentional crime if they knowingly use a
robot to cause harm to others. A person who allows a self-teaching robot to
interact with humans can foresee that the robot might get out of control and
cause harm. This fact alone may give rise to negligence liability. In light of the
overall social benefits associated with the Use of many of today’s robots, however,
the authors argue in favor of limiting the criminal liability of operators to
situations where they neglect to undertake reasonable measures to control the
risks emanating from robots.

Service robots are on the rise. Technological advances in engineering, artificial

intelligence, and machine learning enable robots to take over tasks traditionally
carried out by humans. Despite the rapid increase in the employment of robots,
there are still frequent failures in the performance of service robots. This research
examines how and to what extent people attribute responsibility toward service
robots in such cases of service failures compared to when humans provide the
same service failures. Participants were randomly assigned to read vignettes
describing a service failure either by a service robot or a human and were then
asked who they thought was responsible for the service failure. The results of
three experiments show that people attributed less responsibility toward a robot
than a human for the service failure because people perceive robots to have less
controllability over the task. However, people attributed more responsibility
toward a service firm when a robot delivered a failed service than when a human
delivered the same failed service. This research advances theory regarding the
perceived responsibility of humans versus robots in the service sector, as well as
the perceived responsibility of the firms involved. There are also important
practical considerations raised by this research, such as how utilizing service
robots may influence customer attitudes toward service firms..

It is almost a foregone conclusion that robots cannot be morally responsible

agents, both because they lack traditional features of moral agency like
consciousness, intentionality, or empathy and because of the apparent
senselessness of holding them accountable. Moreover, although some theorists
include them in the moral community as moral patients, on the Strawsonian
picture of moral community as requiring moral responsibility, robots are typically
excluded from membership. By looking closely at our actual moral responsibility
practices, however, I determine that the agency reflected and cultivated by them
is limited to the kind of moral agency of which some robots are capable, not the
philosophically demanding sort behind the traditional view. Hence, moral rule-
abiding robots (if feasible) can be sufficiently morally responsible and thus moral
community members, despite certain deficits. Alternative accountability
structures could address these deficits, which I argue ought to be in place for
those existing moral community members who share these deficits.

Service robots are on the rise. Technological advances in engineering, artificial

intelligence, and machine learning enable robots to take over tasks traditionally
carried out by humans. Despite the rapid increase in the employment of robots,
there are still frequent failures in the performance of service robots. This research
examines how and to what extent people attribute responsibility toward service
robots in such cases of service failures compared to when humans provide the
same service failures. Participants were randomly assigned to read vignettes
describing a service failure either by a service robot or a human and were then
asked who they thought was responsible for the service failure. The results of
three experiments show that people attributed less responsibility toward a robot
than a human for the service failure because people perceive robots to have less
controllability over the task. However, people attributed more responsibility
toward a service firm when a robot delivered a failed service than when a human
delivered the same failed service. This research advances theory regarding the
perceived responsibility of humans versus robots in the service sector, as well as
the perceived responsibility of the firms involved. There are also important
practical considerations raised by this research, such as how utilizing service
robots may influence customer attitudes toward service firms..

it is the government’s responsibility to regulate and ensure the safety of new

technologies. If robots are not thoroughly tested and certified before being
released into society, any harm caused by their malfunction or misuse can be
attributed to a lack of proper oversight. The government should establish strict
guidelines for manufacturers to follow in order to prevent accidents or malicious
intent.

Moreover, governments have a duty to protect their citizens from harm. If robots
are programmed with faulty algorithms or unethical behavior, it is ultimately the
government’s failure in ensuring that these machines adhere to ethical standards.
By neglecting this duty, governments risk endangering their own people.

Lastly, governments must also be held accountable for any negligence in

implementing laws that govern robot usage. If regulations are inadequate or
nonexistent, individuals may exploit robots for harmful purposes without facing
legal consequences. It falls upon the government to establish comprehensive
legislation that addresses potential risks and safeguards against them.

In conclusion, as robots become more prevalent in our society, it is crucial to hold

the government responsible if they cause harm. Through regulation and oversight
measures, governments can mitigate risks associated with these machines and
protect their citizens from potential dangers.