>>It would be ideal if creations like Dorothy were treated like children
>>by the law. Of course, how to do this properly is much more complex.
>
>Why? What possible relationship between children and robots could
>there be, save perhaps emotionally? Robots are capable of much
>more heinous crimes than average children (including the fact that
>they are equipped for extremely dangerous hacks without much danger,
>and the fact that their bodies are often ten times stronger and more
>easily repaired, let alone add-ons), and will always know what they
>are doing (as opposed to children, who generally do not think things
>through).

Those are, indeed, valid points. However, people who create robots will generally fall into one of two categories: 1) they want a tool; 2) they want to create life. Robots that are created as tools are unlikely to have enough sentience to pass a Touring Board anyway. Those that are created as 'life' can be treated as children for the sake of the law: the 'parent' is legally responsible for the robot's actions until it achieves its 'majority'; the robot achieves its 'majority' (i.e. is sufficiently socialized to wander around on its own) after x years, where x is some reasonable number. Robots that are treated like slaves fall under the child endangerment acts and so forth.

The reason why this isn't the case is evolutionary: a robot is merely a highly complex machine, and machines are merely tools. Who'd ever consider a highly advanced spanner to be its own person, after all? Utena, Corwin, Kayte and the rest are simply of a different mindset: it thinks for itself, ergo "it's life, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know it, Captain"

Anyway, just my 0.02$...

-Z

We are Dyslexic of Borg. Your ass will be laminated.