Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should They be Criminalised?
Abstract Soon there will be sex robots. The creation of such devices raises a host of social, legal and ethical questions. In this article, I focus in on one of them. What if these sex robots are deliberately designed and used to replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse? Should the creation and...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Danaher, John [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2014 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Criminal law and philosophy - Springer Netherlands, 2007, 11(2014), 1 vom: 13. Dez., Seite 71-95 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:11 ; year:2014 ; number:1 ; day:13 ; month:12 ; pages:71-95 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC204564670X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC204564670X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230401111503.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200819s2014 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC204564670X | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s11572-014-9362-x-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 340 |a 100 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a INTRECHT |q DE-1a |2 fid | ||
| 084 | |a 2 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines |2 bkl | ||
| 084 | |a 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Danaher, John |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should They be Criminalised? |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2014 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Soon there will be sex robots. The creation of such devices raises a host of social, legal and ethical questions. In this article, I focus in on one of them. What if these sex robots are deliberately designed and used to replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse? Should the creation and use of such robots be criminalised, even if no person is harmed by the acts performed? I offer an argument for thinking that they should be. The argument consists of two premises. The first claims that it can be a proper object of the criminal law to regulate wrongful conduct with no extrinsically harmful effects on others (the moralistic premise). The second claims that the use (and possibly the manufacture) of robots that replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse would be wrongful, even if such usage had no extrinsically harmful effects on others. I defend both premises of this argument and consider its implications for the criminal law. I do not offer a conclusive argument for criminalisation, nor would I wish to be interpreted as doing so; instead, I offer a tentative argument and a framework for future debate. This framework may also lead one to question the proposed rationales for criminalisation. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Sex robots | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Criminalisation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Moral character | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Public wrongs | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Robotic rape | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Robotic child sexual abuse | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Criminal law and philosophy |d Springer Netherlands, 2007 |g 11(2014), 1 vom: 13. Dez., Seite 71-95 |w (DE-627)526138661 |w (DE-600)2274622-5 |w (DE-576)277255597 |x 1871-9791 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:11 |g year:2014 |g number:1 |g day:13 |g month:12 |g pages:71-95 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a FID-INTRECHT | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-JUR | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2041 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines |q VZ |0 106422413 |0 (DE-625)106422413 |
| 936 | b | k | |a 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie |q VZ |0 181571986 |0 (DE-625)181571986 |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 11 |j 2014 |e 1 |b 13 |c 12 |h 71-95 | ||
| author_variant |
j d jd |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:18719791:2014----::ooirpadooicideulbssolt |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2014 |
| bklnumber |
86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie |
| publishDate |
2014 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x doi (DE-627)OLC204564670X (DE-He213)s11572-014-9362-x-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 100 VZ INTRECHT DE-1a fid 2 ssgn 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines bkl 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie bkl Danaher, John verfasserin aut Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should They be Criminalised? 2014 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract Soon there will be sex robots. The creation of such devices raises a host of social, legal and ethical questions. In this article, I focus in on one of them. What if these sex robots are deliberately designed and used to replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse? Should the creation and use of such robots be criminalised, even if no person is harmed by the acts performed? I offer an argument for thinking that they should be. The argument consists of two premises. The first claims that it can be a proper object of the criminal law to regulate wrongful conduct with no extrinsically harmful effects on others (the moralistic premise). The second claims that the use (and possibly the manufacture) of robots that replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse would be wrongful, even if such usage had no extrinsically harmful effects on others. I defend both premises of this argument and consider its implications for the criminal law. I do not offer a conclusive argument for criminalisation, nor would I wish to be interpreted as doing so; instead, I offer a tentative argument and a framework for future debate. This framework may also lead one to question the proposed rationales for criminalisation. Sex robots Criminalisation Moral character Public wrongs Robotic rape Robotic child sexual abuse Enthalten in Criminal law and philosophy Springer Netherlands, 2007 11(2014), 1 vom: 13. Dez., Seite 71-95 (DE-627)526138661 (DE-600)2274622-5 (DE-576)277255597 1871-9791 nnns volume:11 year:2014 number:1 day:13 month:12 pages:71-95 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_4305 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines VZ 106422413 (DE-625)106422413 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie VZ 181571986 (DE-625)181571986 AR 11 2014 1 13 12 71-95 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x doi (DE-627)OLC204564670X (DE-He213)s11572-014-9362-x-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 100 VZ INTRECHT DE-1a fid 2 ssgn 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines bkl 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie bkl Danaher, John verfasserin aut Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should They be Criminalised? 2014 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract Soon there will be sex robots. The creation of such devices raises a host of social, legal and ethical questions. In this article, I focus in on one of them. What if these sex robots are deliberately designed and used to replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse? Should the creation and use of such robots be criminalised, even if no person is harmed by the acts performed? I offer an argument for thinking that they should be. The argument consists of two premises. The first claims that it can be a proper object of the criminal law to regulate wrongful conduct with no extrinsically harmful effects on others (the moralistic premise). The second claims that the use (and possibly the manufacture) of robots that replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse would be wrongful, even if such usage had no extrinsically harmful effects on others. I defend both premises of this argument and consider its implications for the criminal law. I do not offer a conclusive argument for criminalisation, nor would I wish to be interpreted as doing so; instead, I offer a tentative argument and a framework for future debate. This framework may also lead one to question the proposed rationales for criminalisation. Sex robots Criminalisation Moral character Public wrongs Robotic rape Robotic child sexual abuse Enthalten in Criminal law and philosophy Springer Netherlands, 2007 11(2014), 1 vom: 13. Dez., Seite 71-95 (DE-627)526138661 (DE-600)2274622-5 (DE-576)277255597 1871-9791 nnns volume:11 year:2014 number:1 day:13 month:12 pages:71-95 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_4305 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines VZ 106422413 (DE-625)106422413 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie VZ 181571986 (DE-625)181571986 AR 11 2014 1 13 12 71-95 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x doi (DE-627)OLC204564670X (DE-He213)s11572-014-9362-x-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 100 VZ INTRECHT DE-1a fid 2 ssgn 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines bkl 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie bkl Danaher, John verfasserin aut Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should They be Criminalised? 2014 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract Soon there will be sex robots. The creation of such devices raises a host of social, legal and ethical questions. In this article, I focus in on one of them. What if these sex robots are deliberately designed and used to replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse? Should the creation and use of such robots be criminalised, even if no person is harmed by the acts performed? I offer an argument for thinking that they should be. The argument consists of two premises. The first claims that it can be a proper object of the criminal law to regulate wrongful conduct with no extrinsically harmful effects on others (the moralistic premise). The second claims that the use (and possibly the manufacture) of robots that replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse would be wrongful, even if such usage had no extrinsically harmful effects on others. I defend both premises of this argument and consider its implications for the criminal law. I do not offer a conclusive argument for criminalisation, nor would I wish to be interpreted as doing so; instead, I offer a tentative argument and a framework for future debate. This framework may also lead one to question the proposed rationales for criminalisation. Sex robots Criminalisation Moral character Public wrongs Robotic rape Robotic child sexual abuse Enthalten in Criminal law and philosophy Springer Netherlands, 2007 11(2014), 1 vom: 13. Dez., Seite 71-95 (DE-627)526138661 (DE-600)2274622-5 (DE-576)277255597 1871-9791 nnns volume:11 year:2014 number:1 day:13 month:12 pages:71-95 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_4305 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines VZ 106422413 (DE-625)106422413 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie VZ 181571986 (DE-625)181571986 AR 11 2014 1 13 12 71-95 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x doi (DE-627)OLC204564670X (DE-He213)s11572-014-9362-x-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 100 VZ INTRECHT DE-1a fid 2 ssgn 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines bkl 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie bkl Danaher, John verfasserin aut Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should They be Criminalised? 2014 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract Soon there will be sex robots. The creation of such devices raises a host of social, legal and ethical questions. In this article, I focus in on one of them. What if these sex robots are deliberately designed and used to replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse? Should the creation and use of such robots be criminalised, even if no person is harmed by the acts performed? I offer an argument for thinking that they should be. The argument consists of two premises. The first claims that it can be a proper object of the criminal law to regulate wrongful conduct with no extrinsically harmful effects on others (the moralistic premise). The second claims that the use (and possibly the manufacture) of robots that replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse would be wrongful, even if such usage had no extrinsically harmful effects on others. I defend both premises of this argument and consider its implications for the criminal law. I do not offer a conclusive argument for criminalisation, nor would I wish to be interpreted as doing so; instead, I offer a tentative argument and a framework for future debate. This framework may also lead one to question the proposed rationales for criminalisation. Sex robots Criminalisation Moral character Public wrongs Robotic rape Robotic child sexual abuse Enthalten in Criminal law and philosophy Springer Netherlands, 2007 11(2014), 1 vom: 13. Dez., Seite 71-95 (DE-627)526138661 (DE-600)2274622-5 (DE-576)277255597 1871-9791 nnns volume:11 year:2014 number:1 day:13 month:12 pages:71-95 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_4305 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines VZ 106422413 (DE-625)106422413 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie VZ 181571986 (DE-625)181571986 AR 11 2014 1 13 12 71-95 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x doi (DE-627)OLC204564670X (DE-He213)s11572-014-9362-x-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 100 VZ INTRECHT DE-1a fid 2 ssgn 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines bkl 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie bkl Danaher, John verfasserin aut Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should They be Criminalised? 2014 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract Soon there will be sex robots. The creation of such devices raises a host of social, legal and ethical questions. In this article, I focus in on one of them. What if these sex robots are deliberately designed and used to replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse? Should the creation and use of such robots be criminalised, even if no person is harmed by the acts performed? I offer an argument for thinking that they should be. The argument consists of two premises. The first claims that it can be a proper object of the criminal law to regulate wrongful conduct with no extrinsically harmful effects on others (the moralistic premise). The second claims that the use (and possibly the manufacture) of robots that replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse would be wrongful, even if such usage had no extrinsically harmful effects on others. I defend both premises of this argument and consider its implications for the criminal law. I do not offer a conclusive argument for criminalisation, nor would I wish to be interpreted as doing so; instead, I offer a tentative argument and a framework for future debate. This framework may also lead one to question the proposed rationales for criminalisation. Sex robots Criminalisation Moral character Public wrongs Robotic rape Robotic child sexual abuse Enthalten in Criminal law and philosophy Springer Netherlands, 2007 11(2014), 1 vom: 13. Dez., Seite 71-95 (DE-627)526138661 (DE-600)2274622-5 (DE-576)277255597 1871-9791 nnns volume:11 year:2014 number:1 day:13 month:12 pages:71-95 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_4305 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines VZ 106422413 (DE-625)106422413 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie VZ 181571986 (DE-625)181571986 AR 11 2014 1 13 12 71-95 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Criminal law and philosophy 11(2014), 1 vom: 13. Dez., Seite 71-95 volume:11 year:2014 number:1 day:13 month:12 pages:71-95 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Criminal law and philosophy 11(2014), 1 vom: 13. Dez., Seite 71-95 volume:11 year:2014 number:1 day:13 month:12 pages:71-95 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Sex robots Criminalisation Moral character Public wrongs Robotic rape Robotic child sexual abuse |
| dewey-raw |
340 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Criminal law and philosophy |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Danaher, John @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2014-12-13T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
526138661 |
| dewey-sort |
3340 |
| id |
OLC204564670X |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC204564670X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230401111503.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2014 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC204564670X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11572-014-9362-x-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">340</subfield><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">INTRECHT</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-1a</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">2</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">86.02$jRechtsphilosophie</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Danaher, John</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should They be Criminalised?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Soon there will be sex robots. The creation of such devices raises a host of social, legal and ethical questions. In this article, I focus in on one of them. What if these sex robots are deliberately designed and used to replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse? Should the creation and use of such robots be criminalised, even if no person is harmed by the acts performed? I offer an argument for thinking that they should be. The argument consists of two premises. The first claims that it can be a proper object of the criminal law to regulate wrongful conduct with no extrinsically harmful effects on others (the moralistic premise). The second claims that the use (and possibly the manufacture) of robots that replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse would be wrongful, even if such usage had no extrinsically harmful effects on others. I defend both premises of this argument and consider its implications for the criminal law. I do not offer a conclusive argument for criminalisation, nor would I wish to be interpreted as doing so; instead, I offer a tentative argument and a framework for future debate. This framework may also lead one to question the proposed rationales for criminalisation.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Sex robots</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Criminalisation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Moral character</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Public wrongs</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Robotic rape</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Robotic child sexual abuse</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Criminal law and philosophy</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 2007</subfield><subfield code="g">11(2014), 1 vom: 13. Dez., Seite 71-95</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)526138661</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2274622-5</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)277255597</subfield><subfield code="x">1871-9791</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:11</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:13</subfield><subfield code="g">month:12</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:71-95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-INTRECHT</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-JUR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2041</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield><subfield code="0">106422413</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)106422413</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">86.02$jRechtsphilosophie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield><subfield code="0">181571986</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)181571986</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">11</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">13</subfield><subfield code="c">12</subfield><subfield code="h">71-95</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Danaher, John |
| spellingShingle |
Danaher, John ddc 340 fid INTRECHT ssgn 2 bkl 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines bkl 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie misc Sex robots misc Criminalisation misc Moral character misc Public wrongs misc Robotic rape misc Robotic child sexual abuse Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should They be Criminalised? |
| authorStr |
Danaher, John |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)526138661 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
340 - Law 100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1871-9791 |
| topic_title |
340 100 VZ INTRECHT DE-1a fid 2 ssgn 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines bkl 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie bkl Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should They be Criminalised? Sex robots Criminalisation Moral character Public wrongs Robotic rape Robotic child sexual abuse |
| topic |
ddc 340 fid INTRECHT ssgn 2 bkl 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines bkl 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie misc Sex robots misc Criminalisation misc Moral character misc Public wrongs misc Robotic rape misc Robotic child sexual abuse |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 340 fid INTRECHT ssgn 2 bkl 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines bkl 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie misc Sex robots misc Criminalisation misc Moral character misc Public wrongs misc Robotic rape misc Robotic child sexual abuse |
| topic_browse |
ddc 340 fid INTRECHT ssgn 2 bkl 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines bkl 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie misc Sex robots misc Criminalisation misc Moral character misc Public wrongs misc Robotic rape misc Robotic child sexual abuse |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Criminal law and philosophy |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
526138661 |
| dewey-tens |
340 - Law 100 - Philosophy |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Criminal law and philosophy |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)526138661 (DE-600)2274622-5 (DE-576)277255597 |
| title |
Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should They be Criminalised? |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC204564670X (DE-He213)s11572-014-9362-x-p |
| title_full |
Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should They be Criminalised? |
| author_sort |
Danaher, John |
| journal |
Criminal law and philosophy |
| journalStr |
Criminal law and philosophy |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
300 - Social sciences 100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2014 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
71 |
| author_browse |
Danaher, John |
| container_volume |
11 |
| class |
340 100 VZ INTRECHT DE-1a fid 2 ssgn 86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines bkl 86.02$jRechtsphilosophie bkl |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Danaher, John |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x |
| normlink |
106422413 181571986 |
| normlink_prefix_str_mv |
106422413 (DE-625)106422413 181571986 (DE-625)181571986 |
| dewey-full |
340 100 |
| title_sort |
robotic rape and robotic child sexual abuse: should they be criminalised? |
| title_auth |
Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should They be Criminalised? |
| abstract |
Abstract Soon there will be sex robots. The creation of such devices raises a host of social, legal and ethical questions. In this article, I focus in on one of them. What if these sex robots are deliberately designed and used to replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse? Should the creation and use of such robots be criminalised, even if no person is harmed by the acts performed? I offer an argument for thinking that they should be. The argument consists of two premises. The first claims that it can be a proper object of the criminal law to regulate wrongful conduct with no extrinsically harmful effects on others (the moralistic premise). The second claims that the use (and possibly the manufacture) of robots that replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse would be wrongful, even if such usage had no extrinsically harmful effects on others. I defend both premises of this argument and consider its implications for the criminal law. I do not offer a conclusive argument for criminalisation, nor would I wish to be interpreted as doing so; instead, I offer a tentative argument and a framework for future debate. This framework may also lead one to question the proposed rationales for criminalisation. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Soon there will be sex robots. The creation of such devices raises a host of social, legal and ethical questions. In this article, I focus in on one of them. What if these sex robots are deliberately designed and used to replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse? Should the creation and use of such robots be criminalised, even if no person is harmed by the acts performed? I offer an argument for thinking that they should be. The argument consists of two premises. The first claims that it can be a proper object of the criminal law to regulate wrongful conduct with no extrinsically harmful effects on others (the moralistic premise). The second claims that the use (and possibly the manufacture) of robots that replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse would be wrongful, even if such usage had no extrinsically harmful effects on others. I defend both premises of this argument and consider its implications for the criminal law. I do not offer a conclusive argument for criminalisation, nor would I wish to be interpreted as doing so; instead, I offer a tentative argument and a framework for future debate. This framework may also lead one to question the proposed rationales for criminalisation. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Soon there will be sex robots. The creation of such devices raises a host of social, legal and ethical questions. In this article, I focus in on one of them. What if these sex robots are deliberately designed and used to replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse? Should the creation and use of such robots be criminalised, even if no person is harmed by the acts performed? I offer an argument for thinking that they should be. The argument consists of two premises. The first claims that it can be a proper object of the criminal law to regulate wrongful conduct with no extrinsically harmful effects on others (the moralistic premise). The second claims that the use (and possibly the manufacture) of robots that replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse would be wrongful, even if such usage had no extrinsically harmful effects on others. I defend both premises of this argument and consider its implications for the criminal law. I do not offer a conclusive argument for criminalisation, nor would I wish to be interpreted as doing so; instead, I offer a tentative argument and a framework for future debate. This framework may also lead one to question the proposed rationales for criminalisation. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_4305 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should They be Criminalised? |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x |
| remote_bool |
false |
| ppnlink |
526138661 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T03:01:26.988Z |
| _version_ |
1803615822926577664 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC204564670X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230401111503.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2014 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC204564670X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11572-014-9362-x-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">340</subfield><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">INTRECHT</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-1a</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">2</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">86.02$jRechtsphilosophie</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Danaher, John</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should They be Criminalised?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Soon there will be sex robots. The creation of such devices raises a host of social, legal and ethical questions. In this article, I focus in on one of them. What if these sex robots are deliberately designed and used to replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse? Should the creation and use of such robots be criminalised, even if no person is harmed by the acts performed? I offer an argument for thinking that they should be. The argument consists of two premises. The first claims that it can be a proper object of the criminal law to regulate wrongful conduct with no extrinsically harmful effects on others (the moralistic premise). The second claims that the use (and possibly the manufacture) of robots that replicate acts of rape and child sexual abuse would be wrongful, even if such usage had no extrinsically harmful effects on others. I defend both premises of this argument and consider its implications for the criminal law. I do not offer a conclusive argument for criminalisation, nor would I wish to be interpreted as doing so; instead, I offer a tentative argument and a framework for future debate. This framework may also lead one to question the proposed rationales for criminalisation.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Sex robots</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Criminalisation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Moral character</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Public wrongs</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Robotic rape</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Robotic child sexual abuse</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Criminal law and philosophy</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 2007</subfield><subfield code="g">11(2014), 1 vom: 13. Dez., Seite 71-95</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)526138661</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2274622-5</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)277255597</subfield><subfield code="x">1871-9791</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:11</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:13</subfield><subfield code="g">month:12</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:71-95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-INTRECHT</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-JUR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2041</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">86.33$jStrafrecht: Allgemeines</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield><subfield code="0">106422413</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)106422413</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">86.02$jRechtsphilosophie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield><subfield code="0">181571986</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)181571986</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">11</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">13</subfield><subfield code="c">12</subfield><subfield code="h">71-95</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3998823 |