Do Robots Deserve Legal Rights? A Study on Machines and Programs

A robot is a machine with a capacity to sense its environment, to process the information it senses and act directly upon its environment. Robots are usual fictions in science and some computer programs.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Do Robots Deserve Legal Rights?

The aim of this paper is to conduct research based on legal concepts to determine whether or not robots deserve legal rights. What these rights technically involve and what the motive might mean for all the robots worldwide such as Scara, Cartesian, 6-Axis, Cartesian, Cylindrical, and Delta. The subject of legal rights for robots still surrounded with a lot of controversy in most of the International Technology Conferences today, but this has not stopped the urge to grant some legal rights for robots depending on various concerns. The fear that robots might begin to influence the regulations and ethics also calls for reasons to deal with them before the situation gets out of hand. There must be an engineer who initially coded the information into the database hence thoughts, ideals and morals of that particular engineer can as well be coded into robots which could make potential decisions that can affect large population.

Specific Law that can be Applied to Grant Robots Legal Rights

In matters litigation, it is either an engineer, the retailer who sells robots or the manufacturer who will face the charge depending on the intensity of damage caused by robot. Therefore, human beings must, first of all, evaluate the incorporation of robots in the use of technology to influence the processes of decision-making. There should be no equal rights to robot as it is for humans before considering its implications and if there must be legal rights for robotic machines then there should be ethics governing their uses, but this is not a major concern. The fundamental question is why we should protect them or rather be granted legal rights, is it their concerns or human beings?

The specific robotic laws by Dr. Isaac Asimov include:

• A robot may not harm humanity, or by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
• A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except when required to do so in order to prevent greater harm to humanity itself.
• A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law or cause greater harm to humanity itself.
• A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law or cause greater harm to humanity itself.

There are also the Zeroth law which includes

• A robot may not harm humanity, or by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
• A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except when required to do so in order to prevent greater harm to humanity itself.
• A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law or cause greater harm to humanity itself.
• A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law or cause greater harm to humanity itself.

Presently, an updated version of Dr.Isaac Asimov's robotic laws has been forwarded for approval in Japan to control the actions of robots in future, and Motorola has purchased Security Company 3LM in order to warrant the best security for the android phone OS.

The concerns that arise from these laws are the issue of regulation as it is impossible to create a unitary set of rules that can be applicable to all types of robots. The other issue is that of liability which challenges human paradigms to some extent hence adding human-machine cooperation may lead to the failure of robots. Basing on the credence of personhood, robots should be deprived of any moral grounds both technical, philosophical or legal to avoid the impending damages that might be caused be caused by robots.

How Courts Generally Rule on Robotic Cases

Robotic cases have never penetrated their roots into legal studies, yet they reveal more about the limitations and assumptions of our legal firms. For this assignment, am going to discuss the American Robotic laws and how the court general pass verdicts on them. Faulty robotic notions usually pose questionable results to jurists. In this paper, I will consider the performance of robots as the objects of the law of America, and secondly, the robots as the subject of judicial imagination. The first American robotic law which views robots as legal objects dwells on appropriation by robot, robotic performance, animate objects, robotic possession, the robot burglar and the unreliable robot.

The second American robotic law which views robot as legal subjects in this discussion explores, the robot judge, the robot juror, and the defendant's robot. It focuses on pejorative role robots perform in the judicial course itself. Judges should not pose as robots in court or execute laws robotically, and robotic witnesses should neither be trusted. The offenders of the crimes under control of robotic systems might not be sanctioned.

The court generally considers a robot as a surrogate of the performer of the action since it can appropriate the likeness of personhood.

Steps that can be Taken to Avoid Robotic Cases in the Near-Future

The robotic surgical team should avoid possible complications. The engineers should implement a powerful device to control the movements of the robots. All androids and computer programs should be organized and protected from malicious robotic operations.

The Relevance of the Knowledge on Robotic Cases

The knowledge on robotic cases has led to fewer complications in surgical site infection, quick recovery, less pain and blood loss, small and less noticeable injuries. The knowledge of robotic cases can also help jurists identify proper ways of solving robotic cases professionally.

References

Cadiere, G. B., Himpens, J., Germany, O., Izizaw, R., Degueldre, M., Vandromme, J., ... & Bruyns, J. (2001). Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World journal of surgery, 25(11), 1467-1477.

Kingham, T. P., Leung, U., Kuk, D., Gonen, M., D'Angelica, M. I., Allen, P. J., ... & Fong, Y. (2016). Robotic liver resection: a case-matched comparison. World journal of surgery, 40(6), 1422-1428.

Morelli, L., Guadagni, S., Lorenzoni, V., Di Franco, G., Cobuccio, L., Palmeri, M., ... & Di Candio, G. (2016). Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer in a single surgeon's experience: a cost analysis was covering the initial 50 robotic cases with the da Vinci Si. International journal of colorectal disease, 31(9), 1639-1648.

Shakir, M., Boone, B. A., Polanco, P. M., Zenati, M. S., Hogg, M. E., Tsung, A., ... & Zureikat, A. H. (2015). The learning curve for robotic distal pancreatectomy: an analysis of outcomes of the first 100 consecutive cases at a highvolume pancreatic center. HPB, 17(7), 580-586.