AI and robots
The crimes that are caused,
Where does the responsibility lie?
The crimes that are caused,
Where does the responsibility lie?
#Asia University research
YAMAMOTO Takako Associate Professor
Faculty of Law Department of Law
2026.10.01
In our series "If it's not interesting, it's not scholarship!", we introduce research and anecdotes of faculty members at Asia University. Our 25th featured article is Associate Professor Takako Yamamoto of Faculty of Law Department of Law.
The Tokyo subway sarin attack led me into the world of criminal law.
Initially, I wanted to become a prosecutor, someone who investigates crimes, decides whether to prosecute or not, and brings criminals to justice in court. That desire remained unchanged even after I entered Faculty of Law, and I continued to study with the goal of passing the bar exam.
However, when I took the bar exam, I was met with a result that even surprised me. My grades in criminal law, the subject I had studied the most, were the worst. Frustrated by this, I decided to relearn criminal law from the basics and enrolled in Graduate School. As it turned out, that choice led me down the path to becoming research.
When I first started research, I was interested in trending topics and new subjects. However, as I continued to study, I became drawn to the fascinating process of deeply considering the theories that form the foundation of criminal law. Currently, I am research fundamental theories of criminal law such as "causation" and "objective attribution." These may seem like difficult terms at first glance, but they are very fundamental themes that involve considering "who should be held responsible and to what extent."
Many people may have the image that law is a subject where you simply memorize laws. However, in reality, it is a very profound field of study that involves constantly thinking about humanity and society. It is a field of study that observes events happening in society and continuously considers what it means to be human and what responsibility is. I still find it very appealing that there is no end to these questions.
There are no "right answers" in criminal law. That's what makes it so interesting.
Up until high school, my studies, whether in history or mathematics, were primarily focused on memorizing the "correct" answers. When I first entered Faculty of Law, I also intended to learn as many "correct" answers as possible. However, as I delved deeper into criminal law, my perspective changed dramatically.
In class, we are taught things like, "This theory thinks this way," or "The court has ruled this way," but the professor doesn't give a clear answer to the question, "So, which is correct?" At first, I was confused. However, as I continued to study, I came to understand that there isn't just one correct answer in criminal law, and that various viewpoints have been built up through discussion.
Crimes don't always unfold according to textbooks. Each case has its own unique circumstances, and careful consideration is needed to determine who should be held responsible and to what extent. That's why legal theories and precedents evolve in response to societal changes. As a result, many ideas that were influential when I was a student are now being re-evaluated.
For example, if a person who has been assaulted dies in a traffic accident while fleeing, is the responsibility of the person who initially committed the assault, or the driver who caused the accident? Furthermore, how should we consider a case where a third party further assaults the victim after they have fallen, resulting in their death? In actual court cases, there are various viewpoints on such cases, and the debate continues to this day.
I emphasize the extent to which the perpetrator controlled the process leading up to the outcome. On the other hand, courts tend to focus on whether the risk created by the act led to the outcome. Even in the same case, the conclusion can change depending on what aspect is focused on.
Laws are "rules," but in court, a conclusion is reached by carefully accumulating numerous facts and considering human behavior and the workings of society from multiple perspectives. There is no single correct answer that is prepared in advance.
Therefore, I don't expect students to memorize "my answers" in class. I want them to develop the ability to explain in their own words, "This is how I would think about it," after learning about various ways of thinking.
When I see a crime on the news, instead of jumping to conclusions like, "They're the perpetrators, so they should be severely punished," I try to pause and think about things like, "Why did this crime happen?" and "What kind of reasoning does the law use to make its judgments?" I believe that this kind of gradual reflection is what makes studying law so interesting.
In class, we are taught things like, "This theory thinks this way," or "The court has ruled this way," but the professor doesn't give a clear answer to the question, "So, which is correct?" At first, I was confused. However, as I continued to study, I came to understand that there isn't just one correct answer in criminal law, and that various viewpoints have been built up through discussion.
Crimes don't always unfold according to textbooks. Each case has its own unique circumstances, and careful consideration is needed to determine who should be held responsible and to what extent. That's why legal theories and precedents evolve in response to societal changes. As a result, many ideas that were influential when I was a student are now being re-evaluated.
For example, if a person who has been assaulted dies in a traffic accident while fleeing, is the responsibility of the person who initially committed the assault, or the driver who caused the accident? Furthermore, how should we consider a case where a third party further assaults the victim after they have fallen, resulting in their death? In actual court cases, there are various viewpoints on such cases, and the debate continues to this day.
I emphasize the extent to which the perpetrator controlled the process leading up to the outcome. On the other hand, courts tend to focus on whether the risk created by the act led to the outcome. Even in the same case, the conclusion can change depending on what aspect is focused on.
Laws are "rules," but in court, a conclusion is reached by carefully accumulating numerous facts and considering human behavior and the workings of society from multiple perspectives. There is no single correct answer that is prepared in advance.
Therefore, I don't expect students to memorize "my answers" in class. I want them to develop the ability to explain in their own words, "This is how I would think about it," after learning about various ways of thinking.
When I see a crime on the news, instead of jumping to conclusions like, "They're the perpetrators, so they should be severely punished," I try to pause and think about things like, "Why did this crime happen?" and "What kind of reasoning does the law use to make its judgments?" I believe that this kind of gradual reflection is what makes studying law so interesting.
CanAI and robots be held "responsible"?
In recent years, there's a question that students frequently ask in classes and Lecture: "Can AI or robots become criminals?"
For example, if a self-driving car is involved in an accident, who is responsible? Is it the driver, or the manufacturer that designed the car? Or, if AI makes autonomous decisions and takes action, whose actions should be attributed to the outcome?
These problems are no longer mere fantasy; they are real challenges that are beginning to manifest in society.
Criminal law fundamentally considers responsibility based on the premise of "human actions." In other words, it assumes that the individual is a subject with will and the ability to choose their actions. In that sense, current AI and robots cannot be treated as "actors" under the law.
However, on the other hand, when AI becomes highly autonomous and makes decisions that surpass human predictions based on its own will, the question arises as to whether it is appropriate to place all the responsibility on the humans who created the AI. If a generative AI outputs incorrect information and someone suffers damage as a result, who is responsible? Is it the developer, the user, or is there a problem with the AI itself? At present, there is no clear answer. Furthermore, when AI becomes subject to accountability, the question of how to impose penalties arises.
Thus, technological advancements constantly raise new questions for the law. Through my own research in this field, I strongly feel that law should never be limited to considering only past cases. Rather, it is crucial to consider how to prepare in advance for potential future societal changes.
The issues surrounding AI and robots are a prime example of this. As the boundaries between humans and machines become blurred, fundamental questions such as "What is responsibility?" and "What constitutes action?" are being asked anew.
When students encounter these kinds of topics, I hope they won't distance themselves from them thinking, "That seems difficult," but rather take a moment to pause and consider, "How would I think about this?" Because the accumulation of such thought processes is what builds their ability to study law.
For example, if a self-driving car is involved in an accident, who is responsible? Is it the driver, or the manufacturer that designed the car? Or, if AI makes autonomous decisions and takes action, whose actions should be attributed to the outcome?
These problems are no longer mere fantasy; they are real challenges that are beginning to manifest in society.
Criminal law fundamentally considers responsibility based on the premise of "human actions." In other words, it assumes that the individual is a subject with will and the ability to choose their actions. In that sense, current AI and robots cannot be treated as "actors" under the law.
However, on the other hand, when AI becomes highly autonomous and makes decisions that surpass human predictions based on its own will, the question arises as to whether it is appropriate to place all the responsibility on the humans who created the AI. If a generative AI outputs incorrect information and someone suffers damage as a result, who is responsible? Is it the developer, the user, or is there a problem with the AI itself? At present, there is no clear answer. Furthermore, when AI becomes subject to accountability, the question of how to impose penalties arises.
Thus, technological advancements constantly raise new questions for the law. Through my own research in this field, I strongly feel that law should never be limited to considering only past cases. Rather, it is crucial to consider how to prepare in advance for potential future societal changes.
The issues surrounding AI and robots are a prime example of this. As the boundaries between humans and machines become blurred, fundamental questions such as "What is responsibility?" and "What constitutes action?" are being asked anew.
When students encounter these kinds of topics, I hope they won't distance themselves from them thinking, "That seems difficult," but rather take a moment to pause and consider, "How would I think about this?" Because the accumulation of such thought processes is what builds their ability to study law.
I hope you enjoy "questions with no right answers."
Finally, there's something I want to tell everyone who is about to start studying at university. It's this: "I hope you'll enjoy tackling questions that don't have a single right answer."
In high school studies, the emphasis is often on quickly finding the correct answer. However, learning at university is a little different.
Even in the world of criminal law, you can't simply dismiss a case by saying, "A specific person is solely to blame." You have to consider where the consequences of an action end, where other factors begin, and how responsibility should be divided. You'll need to compare various viewpoints and search for your own answers to these questions. It might seem difficult at first, but that's precisely what makes it interesting.
For example, when you see an incident on the news, you might think, "Why did this happen?" Instead of immediately jumping to conclusions, try to imagine, "Are there other perspectives?" or "How would the law address this?" This accumulation of thought will build your ability to study law.
The purpose of studying at university is not simply to increase your knowledge. It is of great importance to cultivate the ability to view things from multiple perspectives and to think for yourself. And this ability will undoubtedly be useful not only in the legal world, but also in society after you enter the workforce.
To all of you aiming to Faculty of Law, I hope you'll cultivate an attitude of enjoying the unknown. The moments when you encounter questions that don't have immediate answers are precisely when your learning deepens.
Criminal law is the study of judging people, but it is also the study of continuously contemplating what it means to be human. I would be delighted if you could experience its depth and fascination with me at university.
In high school studies, the emphasis is often on quickly finding the correct answer. However, learning at university is a little different.
Even in the world of criminal law, you can't simply dismiss a case by saying, "A specific person is solely to blame." You have to consider where the consequences of an action end, where other factors begin, and how responsibility should be divided. You'll need to compare various viewpoints and search for your own answers to these questions. It might seem difficult at first, but that's precisely what makes it interesting.
For example, when you see an incident on the news, you might think, "Why did this happen?" Instead of immediately jumping to conclusions, try to imagine, "Are there other perspectives?" or "How would the law address this?" This accumulation of thought will build your ability to study law.
The purpose of studying at university is not simply to increase your knowledge. It is of great importance to cultivate the ability to view things from multiple perspectives and to think for yourself. And this ability will undoubtedly be useful not only in the legal world, but also in society after you enter the workforce.
To all of you aiming to Faculty of Law, I hope you'll cultivate an attitude of enjoying the unknown. The moments when you encounter questions that don't have immediate answers are precisely when your learning deepens.
Criminal law is the study of judging people, but it is also the study of continuously contemplating what it means to be human. I would be delighted if you could experience its depth and fascination with me at university.
Related Links
- Faculty of Law TOP
- Faculty Faculty of Law Faculty Introduction
- Introduction to Faculty of Law Department of Law
- Faculty of Law Department of Law Four Years of Learning
- Faculty of Law Department of Law Registration Model
- Faculty of Law Department of Law Class Introduction
- Faculty of Law Department of Law Seminar
- Faculty Faculty of Law Department of Law Employment Measures
- Faculty introduction of Faculty of Law Department of Law
#Asia University research