If Male Sex Robots Rape Someone, Charge the Programmers, Not the Robots

[Elspeth]

Something else to keep you up at night...

If Male Sex Robots Rape Someone, Charge the Programmers, Not the Robots
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/if-ma...-robots_042018

...With the proliferation of sex robots into the mainstream, new ethical questions are being raised. One such ethical question is this, what do you do if your sex robot rapes someone?

....The professor is Noel Sharkey, who is a professor of “robotics and AI,” meaning the dude plays with robots and gets to teach kids about all the wonders of playing with robots (I’ll let you infer what you will from that statement).

Sharkey has come out and expressed concerns about the possibility of male sex robots one day going on a rape binger, though I may be exaggerating his point just a bit (ok, I’m taking his ACTUAL point and running wild with it, like a male sex robot running wild in a rape frenzy). His thoughts came out in an interview with the Daily Star

Sharkey isn’t talking bingers so much as he’s talking about the odd one-off incident in which a male sex robot might not pay attention when “his” partner says no. He says that since sex robots are “inanimate devices run by computer programming,” that the one who should be prosecuted for the rape should be the programmer(s), not the robot.

The robot for his part, can LITERALLY say the devil made him do it, only in this case the devil would be the programmer who couldn’t figure out a way to write safe sex code.

Our robot-playing professor goes on to say that, “…if a male gendered sex robot were to rape a woman…the police would need to hunt down the programmer.”

[Rockntractor]

There is already a charge, rape by instrumentation.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Rape requires intent, this idea would have an effective range of zero meters unless you could show the programmers intended for the machine to override all stop commands and prompts and force the act to purposely continue. Negligent rape ain't a thing.

The same logic would apply to a vibrator that got jammed on and then stuck wherever it was put. It may bee a lawsuit, but it isn't a criminal case.

[Elspeth]

Rape requires intent, this idea would have an effective range of zero meters unless you could show the programmers intended for the machine to override all stop commands and prompts and force the act to purposely continue. Negligent rape ain't a thing.

The same logic would apply to a vibrator that got jammed on and then stuck wherever it was put. It may bee a lawsuit, but it isn't a criminal case.

You make an excellent point. If one could prove that the programmer intended the robot to go out and rape people.... hmm.....

[noonwitch]

You make an excellent point. If one could prove that the programmer intended the robot to go out and rape people.... hmm.....

I could see a real problem with S/M scenarios in which the robot is the dominant where things could go wrong in a major way, but that would be a product default kind of thing, not rape, even if the person felt like he or she had been raped.

[Boudreaux]

Besides rape, sexbots can be programmed to kill. Oops, manufacturer defect.

[Elspeth]

I could see a real problem with S/M scenarios in which the robot is the dominant where things could go wrong in a major way, but that would be a product default kind of thing, not rape, even if the person felt like he or she had been raped.

Now that is a scenario I hadn't thought of. You have an excellent point here.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I could see a real problem with S/M scenarios in which the robot is the dominant where things could go wrong in a major way, but that would be a product default kind of thing, not rape, even if the person felt like he or she had been raped.

I agree, that would be a product liability civil lawsuit, not a criminal case.