In March 2025, the Legal Clinic of the University of Caen organized a Unpublished fictitious trial confronting students with an unprecedented legal case: a police cyborg accused of murder. This situation raises a new question, but which risks becoming fundamental in a society where AI and robotics occupy more and more space: should cyborgs be judged as autonomous beings and therefore criminally responsible in the event of accidents, or their designers must answer for their acts instead of their machines?
Legal status: a fundamental distinction
In French law, a robot is not considered a person in the legal sense, whether physical or legal. Although the idea of a “electronic personality”Has already been mentioned, it has never been devoted to positive law. More concretely, a robot, even with an advanced artificial intelligence as in Detroit Bcome Humandoes not have consciousness in the literal sense of the term, and only works thanks to algorithms and databases that process information according to pre -programmed parameters.
In this fictitious trial, the situation is slightly different. Cyborgs being partially robotic human beingsthey retain their status as a natural person, raising the question of their criminal responsibility. This fundamental distinction between robot and cyborg constitutes the starting point for any legal reflection on the responsibility of robotic entities, while highlighting the legal and ethical issues inherent in the laws of robotics.
Consciousness, free will and criminal responsibility
Criminal responsibility, particularly in a case of murder, implies intentionality and an ability to understand good and evil. For cyborgs, the crucial question is to determine whether the cerebral implant alters consciousness by obstructing free will.
Unlike humans, robots operate by execution of algorithms and do not make any truly aware choice. Thus, when the cyborg of the fictitious trial shot his victim due to cries perceived as a threat, it was a robotic bias rather than a deliberate choice ? This blurred border between human decision and algorithmic execution raises unprecedented ethical questions, especially when an individual becomes dependent on implants or an integrated AI.
A legal meli-melo
In the absence of direct responsibility for the police cyborg, several actors could be implicated. The State which authorizes the deployment of these increased police, the company designer in the event of programming flaws, or the center which “shape” and stores robots … The chain of responsibility illustrates all the complexity of the legal issues linked to autonomous systems, as much as The importance of establishing a clear legal framework.
Three principles emerge from this fictitious reflection led by Maria Castillo, lecturer in public law at the University of Caen Normandy and Amandine Cayol, HDR lecturer in private law at the University of Caen Normandy: clearly distinguish the legal status of robots and cyborgsdevelop tools to assess the impact of technologies on human free will, and define a network of alternative responsibilities to guarantee the protection of citizens.
🟣 To not miss any news on the Geek Journal, subscribe to Google News. And if you love us, .
