From: max.sinclair@hippocrates.net Subject: Hippocrates and Hegemonic Law Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:10:24 -0500 For those of you who are interested into looking at Hippocrates' legal situation, I have been collecting legal databases at the various planets we have visited. None of them are Old Hegemonic law (perhaps we could recover such eventually), but they are related. The general principles are similar. I'll start poking my head into university history departments and seeing if I can get something more relevant. Hippocrates, in inworld and outworld law computer programs are not prosecuted. The programmer, or the owner, or the one who configures it, may conceivably be held responsible, but my guess is that most of those people are safely out of reach. Putting a computer program on trial would be, legally, much like putting a gun on trial. As far as I am concerned, you are sentient to all relevant measures, but _legally_ there is a very big loophole here because all the law cares about is "are you a computer program" not "are you sentient." Additionally, Hippocrates, consider how much volition you might have had when you took those actions. Outworld law has a strong concept of un-volitioned action. If somebody psychically controls your mind to kill someone, you are not at fault. There is a burden of proof, but we can certainly have access to expert witnesses who could examine your programming and determine if you had volition for the relevant action. Inworld law has a similar concept, but it is not as strong. Ifni, I'd need an expert witness to even try to explain to me what "volition" means in the context of a sentient computer program. Another question I haven't really researched: What is the appropriate venue for this legal prosecution? Does the Hegemony still exist as an entity under which these charges can be prosecuted? We are in a situation where we are considering a prosecution under laws which nobody, even the judges, knows. Is there a more appropriate venue to which we might move it?
[back]