ABSTRACT
Humans throughout history have come to seek retribution for purported wrongs committed against them. At times, this has presented itself by means of formal systems of crime and punishment in their respective societies and cultural contexts. The impulse to seek vengeance for misdeeds committed by others is one that, I contend, is deeply and inextricably linked to the human experience. However, there is something particularly interesting about this arguably retributive tendency when it comes to beings with minimal to no capacity for reason, ie, nonhumans and inanimate objects. My research outlines various attempts throughout history to govern nonhumans and thus subject them to the constraints of law. These attempts range from humanity’s absurd practice of putting animals and objects on trial to the modern discourse of algorithmic disgorgement.
In Part I, I will review the literature of culpability and rights theory as it relates to assigning blame to moral agents. Part II will provide a brief historical background for holding animals and inanimate objects legally accountable for their actions and consider the reasons for this impulse. Part III will discuss recent notions of personhood, culpability and rights being applied to artificial intelligence (AI); modern attempts to apply the retributivist framework to AI; and then briefly look at the various alternative methodologies for AI governance. Part IV will conclude by offering some final observations and policy considerations.
Wilson, David, Governing ‘Things’: Artificial Intelligence, Animals and Other Nonhumans Before the Law (September 29, 2023), 27 Virginia Journal of Law and Technology 1 (2024).
Leave a Reply