Responsibility gap or responsibility shift? The attribution of criminal responsibility in human–machine interaction
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20508320 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Monika Simmler (0000-0002-2644-8116, Law School, University of St. Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 27 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | 1142-1162 |
| Publication date | 2024-04-25 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Information Communication & Society (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1369-118X • E-ISSN: 1468-4462 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/1369118x.2023.2239895 |
| OpenAlex | W4385278773 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 31 |
The prevalence of automation and advent of intelligent machines have created new constellations in which the attribution of criminal responsibility is complicated. Automation results in complex settings of interaction, while the conduct of technical systems is becoming less determined, predictable, and transparent. There is an ongoing scholarly debate regarding how these developments shape moral and legal agency, as well as the best ways of allocating responsibility. Concerns have been expressed about the emergence of responsibility gaps, calling for ways to ensure accountability. This article explores whether these apprehensions can be empirically substantiated. A factorial survey study (N = 799) conducted in Switzerland was used to research attribution mechanisms in criminal cases involving various forms of human-machine interaction. The results revealed that the level of automation significantly affected the attribution of responsibility. In cases of high automation, attribution became considerably more complex and more actors, especially corporate entities, were called to account. A difference in automation level (i.e., the question of how much humans are still ‘in the loop’) had a stronger effect than did the aspect of technology being described as capable of learning. However, the involvement of intelligent technology seemed to have made the responsibility attribution more arbitrary. According to the respondents, there were no discernable responsibility gaps. However, in the present research, significant shifts among the agents called to account were observable. Yet, since these evasion mechanisms are hardly covered by today's law, there is an ongoing risk of a gap between the desire for punishment and actual legal constructs
Accountability · Attribution · Automation · Criminal law · Criminal responsibility · Moral responsibility · Normative · Political science · Public relations · Social science · Sociology · Engineering · Ethics and Social Impacts of AI · Free Will and Agency · Law · Psychology · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment · Social Psychology
Artificial Intelligence
How AI can be a force for good
The responsibility gap
Attributing Agency to Automated Systems
On the Morality of Artificial Agents
Robots, law and the retribution gap
Artificial Intelligence, Responsibility Attribution, and a Relational Justification of Explainability
A taxonomy of human–machine collaboration
Factorial Survey Experiments
Experimental Vignette Studies in Survey Research
There Is No Techno-Responsibility Gap
Four Responsibility Gaps with Artificial Intelligence
The ethics of algorithms
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 3 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |