Los retos del Derecho penal posmoderno: los coches autónomos y el sistema de faltas en el ordenamiento jurídico italiano The challenges of post-modern criminal law: self-driving cars and negligence in the Italian legal system

AMISANO, MARISTELLA · 2025 · Crossref

DOI: 10.36151/rp.55.03

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This paper addresses the challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous vehicles to traditional criminal law doctrines, specifically within the Italian legal framework. The author, Maristella Amisano, argues that while criminal law is inherently anthropocentric, the rapid integration of AI into society necessitates a reevaluation of classic categories such as negligence and culpability. The research is motivated by the difficulty of identifying responsible subjects and establishing behavioral rules for liability when accidents involve self-driving cars, where the distance between human programming and machine behavior complicates the attribution of fault. The study employs a doctrinal analysis, examining the socio-legal transformation driven by AI and its impact on criminal dogmatics. It references historical contexts, including Alan Turing’s theories on machine intelligence, to frame the current technological shift as a qualitative revolution rather than a mere incremental improvement. The paper categorizes autonomous vehicles according to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) levels of automation, ranging from Level 0 (no automation) to Level 4 (high automation with specific operational conditions). It also reviews regulatory frameworks, such as the European Parliament’s proposal for an AI Regulation and the EU’s cooperation on connected and automated driving, to understand how legal systems are attempting to adapt to these technologies. Key findings indicate that the degree of automation directly influences the assignment of responsibility. For lower levels of automation, the human driver retains supervisory duties and potential liability. However, for fully autonomous systems, identifying the responsible party becomes complex, as traditional concepts of predictability and avoidability are difficult to apply *ex ante*. The paper highlights that AI increases uncertainty in what is termed a "risk society," potentially multiplying negligent offenses. It notes that while criminal law must adapt to societal needs, the opacity of technological processes and the lack of clear behavioral norms for AI make it challenging to determine culpability without abandoning the principle of legality. The significance of this work lies in its call for a rapid but careful response to these legal gaps. Amisano concludes that criminal law cannot remain inert and must evolve to address new risks associated with AI, potentially requiring new principles of protection and prevention. The paper underscores the tension between the anthropocentric nature of criminal law and the non-human agency of AI, suggesting that future legal frameworks must balance the need for accountability with the technical realities of autonomous systems. This analysis provides a foundation for understanding how post-modern criminal law might accommodate technologies that challenge traditional notions of human responsibility.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• automation surprise