Danaher John
School of Law, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Med Law Rev. 2019 Nov 1;27(4):553-575. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwz002.
In July 2014, the roboticist Ronald Arkin suggested that child sex robots could be used to treat those with paedophilic predilections in the same way that methadone is used to treat heroin addicts. Taking this onboard, it would seem that there is reason to experiment with the regulation of this technology. But most people seem to disagree with this idea, with legal authorities in both the UK and US taking steps to outlaw such devices. In this article, I subject these different regulatory attitudes to critical scrutiny. In doing so, I make three main contributions to the debate. First, I present a framework for thinking about the regulatory options that we confront when dealing with child sex robots. Secondly, I argue that there is a prima facie case for restrictive regulation, but that this is contingent on whether Arkin's hypothesis has a reasonable prospect of being successfully tested. Thirdly, I argue that Arkin's hypothesis probably does not have a reasonable prospect of being successfully tested. Consequently, we should proceed with utmost caution when it comes to this technology.
2014年7月,机器人专家罗纳德·阿金提出,儿童性爱机器人可用于治疗有恋童癖倾向的人,就如同美沙酮用于治疗海洛因成瘾者一样。基于此观点,似乎有理由对这项技术的监管进行试验。但大多数人似乎不同意这一想法,英美两国的法律当局已采取措施将此类设备定为非法。在本文中,我对这些不同的监管态度进行批判性审视。在此过程中,我对这场辩论做出了三点主要贡献。第一,我提出了一个思考框架,用于探讨在处理儿童性爱机器人时我们所面临的监管选择。第二,我认为初步来看有理由进行严格监管,但这取决于阿金的假设是否有成功测试的合理前景。第三,我认为阿金的假设可能没有成功测试的合理前景。因此,在这项技术上我们应极其谨慎地行事。