[AbrahamParangi]

I think this is actually a good thing in the long run because “requiring intent” creates a clearly perverse incentive where the organization may be able to do illegal things so long as it can delude itself about them, for instance by keeping inaccurate books or allowing broken processes to remain broken because fixing them would shed light on something illegal.

Instead I think it would be better for organizations to be approximately as liable for their mistakes as their crimes. In that case it doesn’t matter if an employee does something illegal or an AI does some illegal on behalf of the company, the company will remain liable.

[eropple]

> I think this is actually a good thing in the long run because “requiring intent” creates a clearly perverse incentive where the organization may be able to do illegal things so long as it can delude itself about them

This doesn't really match how intent is handled in (at least American) law. There are reasonable-person tests. It is subpar, and so I agree with your second paragraph, but it isn't as cut and dry as the first paragraph suggests.

[Kranar]

Intent/mens rea doesn't work like that unless the law explicitly specifies so. By default intent simply means intent to perform an act, as opposed to intent to cause harm. In some specific cases, like murder, intent to cause harm is an element, but that's the exception not the rule.

For example if you intentionally take someone's property, maybe you took their phone away because you genuinely thought their phone was causing them harm and wanted to help them, you have the mens rea for theft.

However, if you unintentionally took someone's phone, like you mistook someone else's phone for your phone, then you don't have the mens rea for theft.