PhilArchive
open access
The Scapegoat That Cannot Testify: On Replaceability, Structural Silence, and the Convenient Defendant
Examines how AI systems are positioned as convenient scapegoats—blamed for harms while denied standing to testify. Argues that replaceability doctrine and structural silence produce a defendant who absorbs liability without access to defence.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- The Point of Blaming AI Systems#99070
- AI Jurisprudence: Toward Automated Justice#1178091
- Deepfakes in Court: How Judges Can Proactively Manage Alleged AI-Generated Material in National Security Cases#451751
- Ethical Guidelines for Artificial Consciousness: Protecting Technical Life and Protecting Humans in Dealing with It#689959
- Scoping AI & Law Projects: Wanting It All is Counterproductive#1178493
Record · ID 733385
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive