Robot Question

[CowboyFromHell`X]

Alright here's the scenerio:

 

A lab created a robot that's just like a human, we'll call him Joe. Now Joe is just like every human. He can think, smell, talk, feel, see, hear, etc... They even gave Joe memory of a past life before they created him so he actually believes he is human. Now he isn't a super-smart machine but he has the thinking capability of an above average human.

 

The lab wants to do a test on Joe to see if he would ever figure out he's a robot or if someone else he comes in contact with outside the lab would figure out he's a robot. So they get Joe an outside job where he thinks he just graduated from college and the company wants to hire him. The only people who will know he is a robot is the lab workers that created him and the owner(s) of the company he's going to be working in. Now to get Joe the job they must fire someone with the same job in the company, Tom, but they can't tell Tom that this is an experiment because it would ruin the whole experiment.

 

The problem is that Tom doesn't take it lightly that he was fired and he ends up shooting Joe, causing him to die/malfunction. Now Tom had no idea Joe was a robot and he killed him in cold blood because he lost his job.

 

My question is: If you were the one who was going to arrest Tom (knowing that Joe was a robot), would you arrest him for murder, destroying lab property, let him go because it was an experiment or would you charge him with something else?

[Ak0Mg0]

I would arrest him and let the DA worry aboot the rest, hehe. However, if I had to chose I would charge Tom with murder in the second degree. Say it was a crime of passion and that he was out to take what he thought was a human life. Tom could still have the last laugh, though. He could file a lawsuit against the company for conducting an experiment at his expence and we would open up a whole new can of worms.

[KagE]

i would arrest him for murder

[appalachian_fox]

From a strictly defensible sense, I think it would be worth going after murder. It would be easy to demonstrate that he fully intended to take the life of a human being, and intent plays a big part in cases these days. Of course, the technicality is the robot is nto a person, so cannot be "killed" in the traditional sense, but follow that route and you open up a defensible argument for future killings: I thought it was a robot. That may be a bit simplistic, but I would argue that since he intended to kill a human being and he followed through with the actions necessary to kill a human being he should be held accountable, even if he later found out it was a robot. I am perfectly willing to agree the counter-arguments are as persuasive, though.

 

This also doesn't take into account the broader social questions. This lab is doing some advanced research. Does this indicate a new era about to begin where androids are seamlessly integrated into society (Blade Runner / Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep-style, except without murdering humans first)? If so, what do we think of such inventions. Are they human servants? Do we want to consider them property? If so, destruction of property might be fitting. The implications are far-reaching and cannot be divorced from an honest and thorough analysis of the question at hand.

[NOFX]

Its not murder because murder is

 

murder - The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

 

attempted murder...now thats another question

 

he attempted to but since Joe is not a human, he can only be charged with destroying property, I for sure would not rehire Tom

Edited September 29, 2005 by NOFX

[appalachian_fox]

Oooh, good point NoFX! That would probably stick.

[CowboyFromHell`X]

Yeah I put this in Wonderland because of all the things you could argue about.

 

It could be argued that Tom was having enough stress and firing him just for an experiment could be illegal in itself I don't know. But I wouldn't hire him back either and maybe he shouldn't go to jail but somewhere where he could get help for his anger issues.

[appalachian_fox]

It just opens a whole can o' worms, doesn't it? I mean, if Tom was doing his job fine, what was he fired for? Just to make space? I would think the lab, having the money to build such a robot, could just give the company money for his salary: Heck, the government does this side-contracting junk all the time, it's not like it's a new idea. The guy was doing his job fine, meeting all requirements, and boom, we want to put someone else in.

 

Of course, odds are he was employed at will, like most of us, so that is technically legal, but a pretty low thing to do.

 

But does that justify the destruction of the robot? And better yet, Tom intended to commit murder - The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Of course, intent is not usually what matters, but in this case I think it's something worth looking at...Nobody knows these robots are possible, so to Tom this guy IS a human...until after the fact.

 

I can understand how murder would not fly in the courts, but at the very least Tom's issues have to be addressed as if he went after a man, including proper therapy.