Artificial Intelligence Between Criminal Accountability and the Difficulty of Attribution (Medical Robot as a Case Study)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE DIFFICULTY OF ATTRIBUTION (MEDICAL ROBOT AS A CASE STUDY)
This academic article examines the criminal accountability of artificial intelligence entities, focusing specifically on medical robots and the difficulty of attributing errors to a specific agent when patient harm occurs. It explores the debate over whether AI entities should be granted legal personality, contrasting arguments for criminal liability with the human agent theory which distributes liability among the manufacturer, programmer, and user. Through an analytical and comparative approach referencing Lebanese and French legislation, the study concludes that AI entities lack independent free will and control, meaning criminal liability should rest with human actors under the human representative theory.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, legal scholars, legislators, and practitioners interested in the intersection of artificial intelligence, medical technology, and criminal law.
What the document contains
The article addresses the criminal liability of artificial intelligence entities with a focus on medical robots, examining the debate surrounding legal personality, the human representative theory, and the legal responsibility of physicians, manufacturers, and programmers under comparative Lebanese and French law.
Not stated
- Attributing criminal error caused by medical robots is challenging because harm may result from programming errors, poor maintenance, or human misuse.
- Jurisprudence remains divided on whether AI entities should possess legal personality, in the absence of specific legislation.
- The human agent theory distributes criminal liability among the manufacturer, programmer, and user of the AI entity.
- Proponents of AI criminal liability argue from the perspective of legal necessity and social dangerousness, while opponents emphasize the requirement of human free will and moral responsibility.
- The study recommends that Lebanese legislation adopt a comprehensive framework for AI applications and medical robots to address gaps in criminal accountability.
· المقدمة · المبحث الاول: جدلية تطبيق أحكام المسؤولية الجزائية عن أفعال الذكاء الاصطناعي · المبحث الثاني: أحكام المسؤولية الجزائية عن أضرار الروبوت الطبي كأحد تطبيقات الذكاء الاصطناعي · الخاتمة
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
0/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
4/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
يقوم الاخير بالتحكم الكامل في كل حركات الروبوت، ومن جانبه يقوم الاخير بتنفيذ الاوامر والقيام بالعمليات الجراحية بكل دقة
المبحث الثاني - المطلب الأول
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
3/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
يلتزم المصنع أو المنتج بمعايير محددة في المنتج أهمها توافر السلامة والأمان، بالإضافة إلى معايير تحمي من الغش التجاري
المبحث الثاني - المطلب الثاني
screening score · 2026-10-23