12

A contrived example:

  • You connect the fuse of a bomb to a 50/50 randomizer and take it for a walk across some public place.
  • You get lucky with the randomizer and the bomb doesn't go off.

  • Can you still be legally charged? I understand that planning a crime can be illegal, but here you just allowed for the possibility of one to happen.

  • Does the probability matter? Let's say the chance was not 50/50, but one in a million for it to go off. Do you really intend for something to happen if you make it unlikely to happen?

I know this example is very contrived, but it distills down the moral/legal question that occurs when a person gives a machine the power to make a 'decision', that may be problematic:

Is creating the possibility for an illegal outcome already fundamentally illegal?

I am mainly thinking about this in the context of AI systems, but would like to have a general answer. Here are two real scenarios, just to illustrate where I'm coming from: 1,2

ChrisB
  • 237
  • 2
  • 6

3 Answers3

43

I would say this is an act of Reckless Endangerment

Reckless endangerment in the first degree You will face this charge if you recklessly engage in conduct that creates a grave risk of death to another person under circumstances which evince a depraved indifference to human life. It is a Class D felony. N.Y. Pen. Law § 120.25.

Does the probability matter? Probably. You probably cannot prove the probability since in real life scenarios there are unexpected ways the bomb could go off. The court would have to evaluate on a case by case basis.

IKnowNothing
  • 2,297
  • 1
  • 10
  • 25
25

No, the possibility of illegality is not illegal

Of course, your example is just straight out illegal because it’s reckless endangerment, so it’s a poor example for the purpose. Let’s try a different one:

You get in a car and drive.

This activity exposes people to risk of injury and death but it’s not a priori illegal.

If you don’t have a licence or are drunk when you do it then the act is illegal as soon as you do it, but assuming you have a legal right to drive, it’s not illegal to do so.

Nor is it illegal to drive through a pedestrian crossing. But it is usually illegal if you don’t give way to a pedestrian. But, the individual circumstances matter.

Doing anything raises the possibility of future illegality. So does not doing anything.

An act is illegal (specifically criminal) if you commit each of the elements that the crime requires. It is always assessed retrospectively.

Dale M
  • 237,717
  • 18
  • 273
  • 546
16

This would be an attempt. An attempt requires the intention to commit the completed offence, along with a step taken that is more than merely preparatory.

You are wondering about how intent would be proved. As always, it would be proved with evidence, including testimony if given, to be weighed according to its credibility and reliability.

There is also a presumption that a person intends the natural outcomes of their actions.

An analogy: if one were to fire a bullet into a crowd with a 50% chance of hitting a person, and "get lucky" that it hits no one, that is still attempted murder.

At some point, the circumstances will be such that no intention can be inferred, but that is not based purely or even primarily on the probability of the harm. As mentioned, all relevant evidence can be used to prove intent.

And even if there is no intent for the possible worst-case outcome, the mere presentation of the risk can itself be a lower-level offence, as described by IKnowNothing, but this depends on the precise offences that have been codified in the jurisdiction.

Jen
  • 87,647
  • 5
  • 181
  • 381