The same way that harming people intentionally via software engineering is not regulated now, negligent harm isn't regulated either. I'm not expressing my support either way because this is a complex issue I haven't explored nearly enough - I'm just pointing out that current laws have stipulations for unintentional action or inaction as well.
Claiming ignorance, incompetence or other factors that might lead to unintentional harm does not get you off scot free.
There isn't a single software engineer alive that hasn't made a negligible error. It's like penalizing doctors if their patient dies. The halting problem specifically prohibits a programmer from ever even knowing if they are without negligence or simply one iteration away from complete negligence. (ie integer overflow that occurred because the system was used longer than the original developer intended).
Also, I would wager that about 75% of bugs come from the seems of integrations where two peoples duties overlap. In that case who's fault is it if they both built half a bridge that doesn't line up?
> It's like penalizing doctors if their patient dies
Doctors should be punished if their patient dies for reasons caused by doctor's own fault or by some unintentional action or inaction. That's why malpractice insurance is a thriving industry.
> In that case who's fault is it if they both built half a bridge that doesn't line up?
The chief engineer or the architect, the ones who signed off on the project. And again, that's why those industries have professional liability insurance.
Claiming ignorance, incompetence or other factors that might lead to unintentional harm does not get you off scot free.