Mens rea

We have to start with the foundational equation of criminal liability.

Evaluating liability always requires matching a prohibited physical act, the actus reus, with a culpable mental state, the mens rea.

Right.

The basic building blocks.

Right.

The defendant is simply arguing that the prosecution has failed to prove one specific statutory element.

And almost always that element is the mens rea.

Got it.

That's what she's going to say.

She's going to basically take the mens rea component of this and run with it, which is that she had no idea.

Look at you,

sounding like a lawyer there.

Well, and just one last comment on that, and you do bring up an important point.

In the case you're talking about, when you deal with mail fraud, you need the mens rea, the specific intent.

In some of the other cases that I was referring to, it's more public safety and it's general intent.

And as Patrick and Saverio mentioned earlier in their presentation, they were able to put together really good jury instructions, you know, that would go to the court to kind of make that point as to what willfulness means.

It would be unwise to simply declare that all actions taken by an AI agent should be imputed as intended by the next deployer or developer up the chain.

Instead of seeking a quick fix, we should look at the role of mens rea," Latin term, M-E-N-S R-E-A, "plays in each law and ask the following three questions.

One, is the conduct described the kind that ought to be criminalized if committed by an AI agent? Two, if so, shall we assign criminal culpability to a developer, deployer, user, or more than one of the above? And three, can we set a mens rea requirement for that actor at a level other than intent?" This is accurate and more subtle, uh, legal thinking.

Um, mens rea, which I'm, I'm sure I'm mispronouncing, is Latin for guilty mind, so it's, it, it's the legal concept of intent, right? Did you have intent to do this criminal thing? It's a key part of a lot of criminal liability laws, right? That if I, uh, intend to do something criminal is a different legal standard than if I accidentally do something illegal.

It's the foundation of every criminal trial in the English-speaking world.

The legal concept here is mens rea, the Latin for guilty mind.

Mens rea is a cornerstone of criminal law because it prevents punishment of morally blameless individuals.

A person who accidentally causes harm without intending to do harm or even awareness should not be treated the same as a person who deliberately sets out to hurt others.

This is why we have so many distinctions for homicide in our legal system.

And negligent.

You failed to notice a risk that any reasonable person would have noticed.

The difference, then, between something like murder and manslaughter is almost entirely a question of mens rea.

The liability of a crime is expressed by the following Latin phrase, "Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea," which means, "An act does not deserve blame unless the mind is guilty." Now, let us look at the sentence again.

In it, there is an emphasis on the following two phrases: actus reus and mens rea.

In short, actus reus means guilty act, and mens rea means guilty mind.

Now let us understand the definition of crime.

First, the notion that acts such as theft, murder, and rape are prohibited is universally accepted.

Every state has the right to restrict a person's liberty if they commit a crime.

A crime is said to have been committed when a voluntary act or omission is accompanied by a specific state of mind.

To put it simply, crime is a guilty act, actus reus, or the act of doing something criminal, which is against the law, done by a guilty mind, mens rea, or the intention of doing something criminal.

[laughs]

Take me through Mens Rea.

Yeah.

Take me through your proposed solution-

... to the AI chaos of this year.

I- and I'd love to hear your feedback on it.

Um, Mens Rea is the Latin term, uh, for a guilty mind.

Yeah, we're pivoting to talk about AI safety, which, I'll be honest, for years I've watched the debate about people predicting doom, et cetera, and I've kind of stayed out.