| Abstract: | Šio magistro darbo tikslas yra ištirti, ar, save vairuojančiam automobiliui sukėlus eismo įvykį, baudžiamoji atsakomybė galėtų būti šalinama pagal Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso 31 straipsnį, bei išsiaiškinti, ar save vairuojantys automobiliai ir jų sistemose programuotojų iš anksto užprogramuoti pasirinkimai gali atitikti būtinojo reikalingumo sąlygas.
Šiame darbe keliama hipotezė: save vairuojančiam automobiliui sukėlus eismo įvykį, baudžiamoji atsakomybė, pagal Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso 31 straipsnį, negalėtų būti šalinama.
Šiame magistro darbe buvo naudojami keturi tyrimo metodai: aprašomasis, analizės, lyginamasis ir loginis. Jie buvo taikomi priklausomai nuo tyrimo uždavinių.
Šis magistro darbas susideda iš trijų pagrindinių dalių, kuriose yra nagrinėjami skirtingi tyrimo etapai.
Pirmojoje darbo dalyje yra aprašomi ir analizuojami būtinojo reikalingumo instituto esminiai taikymo ir reglamentavimo aspektai Lietuvoje. Antrojoje darbo dalyje Lietuvoje taikomo ir reglamentuojamo būtinojo reikalingumo instituto sąlygos yra lyginamos su Anglijoje ir Vokietijoje taikomų ir reglamentuojamų būtinojo reikalingumo institutų sąlygomis. Trečiojoje darbo dalyje yra pateikiama save vairuojančių automobilių samprata, galimi moraliniai scenarijai, apžvelgiamos vyraujančios etinio pasirinkimo teorijos ir analizuojamas galimas jų pritaikomumas save vairuojančių automobilių valdymo sistemose.
Atlikus tyrimą, darbe kelta hipotezė pasitvirtino ir gauti rezultatai parodė, kad save vairuojantis automobilis, priešingai nei įprasto automobilio vairuotojas, esamuoju laiku negali savarankiškai „spręsti, kurią etinio pasirinkimo teoriją būtų geriausia taikyti, o gali tik vadovautis“ (išskirta autorės) iš anksto programuotojų įdiegtais algoritmais, paremtais dviejomis iš trijų etinio pasirinkimo teorijų. Negalėjimas paversti algoritmais ir į save vairuojančio automobilio kompiuterinę sistemą įdiegti vienos iš trijų etinio pasirinkimo teorijų lemia „ribotai sąmoningus pasirinkimus“ (išskirta autorės) ir yra pakankamas pagrindas atsisakyti šalinti baudžiamąją atsakomybę, kadangi lemiamą reikšmę, sprendžiant, ar gali būti šalinama baudžiamoji atsakomybė, turi tai, kokia etinio pasirinkimo teorija būtinojo reikalingumo situacijoje buvo vadovautasi, ir laimingas atsitiktinumas, kad neprireikė vadovautis ta etinio pasirinkimo teorija, kurios negalima įdiegti į save vairuojančių automobilių kompiuterinę sistemą, negali prilygti sąmoningam ir valingam sprendimui sukelti geresnes pasekmes.
The purpose of this study is to analyze the question of eliminating criminal liability under 31 article of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania in the case of an accident caused by self-driving car. Also to investigate whether self-driving cars and decisions that were earlier made by the programmers and based on algorithms could fulfil the conditions and requirements of the defence of necessity.
Initial hypothesis discussed in this thesis is: it is not possible to eliminate criminal liability under 31 article of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania in the case of an accident caused by self-driving car.
Four primary methods were employed in this study: descriptive research, data analysis, comparative method and logical method - to investigate key aspects of elimination of criminal liability in the case of an accident caused by self-driving car and the possibility of fulfilling the conditions and requirements for the defence of necessity when decisions were earlier made by the programmers and based on algorithms. They were implemented depending on specific research tasks.
The thesis is composed of four chapters, each of them dealing with different stages of research.
First part of thesis analyzes sources of law of the concept of the defence of necessity in Lithuanian law and the conditions for the defence of necessity. In the first part are described and analyzed the fundamental aspects of application and regulation of the defence of necessity legal institution. It identifies the groups of sources of law, two types of conditions for the defence of necessity, analyzes the provisions of the defence of necessity provided in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. Also it discusses explicit conditions for the defence of necessity provided in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania and reviews implicit conditions as well.
Second part of thesis compares concept of the defence of necessity required conditions of its application in different legal systems. Specific requirements for defence of necessity in Lithuanian, English and German law are compared and analyzed. Analysis performed in the second part of the thesis is dedicated to the evaluation of similarities and differencies between various legal systems. Comparison is performed concerning specific conditions, number of the conditions, the subject-matter and the exceptions when the defence of necessity is not applicable.
Third part of thesis discusses the concept of the self-driving car, moral scenarios and the possible application of main theories of ethical choice into the computer-based system of self-driving cars. In the third part are reviewed the possible moral scenarios, made by Massachusetts Institute of Technology media lab team, which self-driving cars will definitely encounter in the near future, and the three main theories of ethical choice - utilitarianism, deontological ethics and virtue ethics. The relationship between the three main theories of ethical choice and the defence of necessity is defined and analyzed. Furthermore, in the third part is analyzed, whether it is enough to everytime follow only one theory of ethical choice; whether all three main theories of ethical choice could be implemented into the computer-based system of self-driving cars; whether all the decisions, which were made earlier by the programmers, could be considered as semi-conscious if there is no possibility of converting to algorithms and implementing all ethical choice theories into the computer-based system of self-driving cars and, in that case, whether semi-consciousness by itself could be a sufficient reason to eliminate criminal responsibility under the defence of necessity.
The results of the research revealed that it is not enough to everytime follow only one theory of ethical choice, because at some situations it might be insufficient to provide us with the better decision. Later, it was made clear that not all main theories of ethical choice could be implemented into the computer-based system of self-driving cars. Only utilitarianism and deonthological ethics could be implemented in them. There is no possibility of implementing ethical choice theory of virtue ethics, because self-driving cars have no self-awareness based on principals of morality, they cannot be morally responsible for their actions. Also, it is impossible to simplify all the provisions and criterions of the virtue ethics and by converting them to algorithms implement them into the computer-based system of self-driving cars. It was found that impossibility of converting to algorithms and implementing into the computer-based system of self-driving cars one of the three main theories of ethical choice makes it impossible to programme the self-driving car to always choose the better way of behaviour and it leads to conclusion that all the decisions, which were made earlier by the programmers, will be considered as semi-conscious. The results revealed that semi-consciousness by itself cannot be a sufficient reason to eliminate the criminal responsibility under the defence of necessity, because the decision to cause better consequences, to choose better way of behaviour, in this context to programme the self-driving car to act like that, must be made consciously and volitionally. The results suggest that it cannot be just a lucky coincidence, that in a certain situation there was no need to follow that ethical choice theory, which certainly cannot be implemented into the computer-based system of self-driving car.
Initial hypothesis, that it is not possible to eliminate criminal liability under 31 article of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania in the case of an accident caused by self-driving car, has been proved. |
