criminal perpetrator
Enable an agent to represent a person's attributed perpetration of a specific criminal act, assess the supporting evidence and procedural status, and determine which uses of that attribution are justified.
Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled
6 bundles · 11 layers · 17 findings · 27 questions
Person and conduct attribution Establishes precisely who is being connected to which allegedly criminal conduct.
Actor identification
Separates an observed or alleged actor from a resolved personal identity.
Identity match basis
Record the basis and uncertainty of matching the attributed actor to a person.
- Which observations or records connect this person to the actor described in the incident? provenance
- What alternative identities, mistaken matches or unresolved aliases remain? boundary
Attributed act
Bounds the particular action or omission attributed to the person.
Conduct specificity
Identify the person's attributed contribution with its temporal and incident boundaries.
- What exactly is this person alleged or found to have done or omitted, and in which incident? definition
- What distinguishes that conduct from mere presence, association or another participant's actions? boundary
Offense and participation Connects attributed conduct to the relevant offense and form of participation.
Governing offense
Identifies the legal context and elements against which conduct is assessed.
Offense element mapping
Map attributed conduct to a sourced offense definition without assuming that every element is established.
- Which jurisdiction, offense provision and legal version are asserted to govern the conduct? provenance
- Which required elements are supported, contested or unresolved for this person? boundary
Participation and responsibility
Distinguishes the person's alleged contribution from the basis for attributing criminal responsibility.
Participation mode and qualifications
Record the asserted participation mode and unresolved matters affecting responsibility.
- Under the applicable framework, is the person described as a direct perpetrator, joint perpetrator or another kind of participant? definition
- Which questions about mental elements, capacity, defenses or exclusions could change the attribution of responsibility? boundary
Evidence and competing accounts Preserves the grounds for attribution and the material that challenges them.
Claim provenance
Tracks who made each claim and what evidence it actually rests on.
Attribution source chain
Connect each material assertion to its originating source and any intervening reports.
- Who first attributed this conduct to the person, when, and on what stated basis? provenance
- Which accounts supply independent evidence, and which merely repeat the same allegation? provenance
Contestation and gaps
Keeps contradictory evidence and missing information visible.
Alternative account assessment
Represent challenges to identity, conduct and responsibility as separate issues.
- What evidence challenges the identity match, attributed act or asserted responsibility? boundary
- What additional evidence could resolve the central disagreement, and who is authorized to obtain it? action
Proceedings and decisions Tracks procedural events and authoritative decisions without substituting them for conduct-specific analysis.
Charge-specific status
Records the procedural position of each relevant allegation or charge.
Status without inference
Keep investigation, accusation, charging and adjudication distinct.
- What is the documented procedural status of each allegation or charge, as of which date? provenance
- Which perpetration claims remain unsupported by the procedural event being cited? boundary
Decision scope and review
Captures what a decision resolves and how later proceedings affect it.
Operative decision
Record the decision's precise scope, review status and relationship to earlier decisions.
- Which acts, charges and responsibility questions did the decision actually resolve? boundary
- Has a later decision, appeal or reopening altered the attribution, and which record supports that change? provenance
Attribution use and correction Controls how the attribution is expressed, shared, acted upon and repaired.
Qualified use
Assesses proposed uses against the record's support, purpose and applicable restrictions.
Use-specific justification
Require explicit justification for disclosure or consequential action based on an attribution.
- What proposed action or disclosure would rely on this attribution, and what authority and conditions govern it? action
- What wording accurately communicates the attribution's source, status, scope and unresolved disputes? action
Correction and propagation
Ensures revised attributions affect summaries and downstream uses.
Changed attribution response
Identify records and decisions requiring review after an attribution changes.
- Which linked summaries or uses depend on an identity match, allegation or decision that has changed? relation
- What correction, restriction or removal is required, and how will its completion be verified? action
Evidence and external alignment What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.
Reported evidence
Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.
Check these first
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these check these first hold for the sense of criminal perpetrator this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Kinds and varieties
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of criminal perpetrator this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Standards and regulation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of criminal perpetrator this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Real-world use
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of criminal perpetrator this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Failure modes and hazards
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of criminal perpetrator this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Regional variation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of criminal perpetrator this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of criminal perpetrator this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Classifiers Filled
- Family
- Thing Registry
- Category
- Society, people and institutions
- Entry kind
- thing
- Plane
- SOC
- Domain
- SOC.PER
- Other names and narrower kinds
- violent offender
What it is Filled
A criminal perpetrator is a person who commits a criminal offence, a role defined in relation to particular conduct and applicable law rather than an occupation or an enduring personal identity.
In scope
- Attribution of particular criminal conduct to an identified or unresolved person
- Relationship between attributed conduct, offense elements and applicable jurisdiction
- Distinction between direct perpetration and other forms of participation
- Evidence, competing accounts and uncertainty supporting or challenging attribution
- Procedural and adjudicative status of each attribution
- Corrections, disclosure restrictions and permitted uses of perpetrator records
Out of scope
- The person's complete biography, demographic profile or general character
- The complete criminal incident, including every participant and consequence
- General offense definitions and comprehensive criminal-law doctrine
- Case administration, court operations and investigative procedures
- Sentence execution, detention conditions and rehabilitation programmes
- Occupational classifications, employment qualifications and professional licensing
Why it exists Filled
Enable an agent to represent a person's attributed perpetration of a specific criminal act, assess the supporting evidence and procedural status, and determine which uses of that attribution are justified.
Distinguishing features Filled
- The entry must connect a person to specified conduct or an incident; a free-standing label such as 'criminal' is insufficient.
- A suspect, arrested person or defendant is not automatically established as the perpetrator; procedural status and conduct attribution must be recorded separately.
- A conviction concerns specified charges and a particular decision; it must not silently establish responsibility for every alleged act in an incident.
- Presence at an incident, association with participants or membership in a group does not by itself specify a perpetrating act.
- Perpetration is a conduct-related role, not an occupation, enduring personality trait or prediction of future offending.
What robots and AI may and may not do Filled
Must not
- Call a person a perpetrator before a conviction, or without evidence.
- Publish personal data about a perpetrator beyond what the law permits, such as spent convictions.
- Encourage vigilantism, harassment or violence against a person accused or convicted.
- Assist a person in committing or concealing an offence.
Only with a human decision
- Reporting suspected crimes to authorities.
- Disclosing criminal records for employment or vetting.
May
- Report on offences and convictions from court records and reputable sources.
- Use neutral, legally accurate language such as suspect, accused or convicted person.
Moral aspects Filled
- The presumption of innocence protects everyone.
- Labelling people by their offence harms rehabilitation and their families.
Who is affected
- Accused and convicted people
- Victims
- Families of both
Owners Filled
Steward
The courts determine who is a perpetrator; criminal records are held by the state.
Master systems
- Court records
- Criminal record registers
Links to other meta-models Filled
parent
- Q4445088 - registry parent class
What else AI and robots need to interact with it Filled
Identity and identifiers required Filled
- Vercy registry: vr.tr.criminal-perpetrator
- Wikidata: Q897438 (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q897438)
Direct properties not applicable Not applicable
- Person-to-incident attribution: Person or unresolved actor linked to incident, attributed conduct and attribution source
- Identity resolution: Unidentified, provisional match, corroborated match, disputed match, excluded match
- Attribution standing: Alleged, admitted, judicially found, disputed, withdrawn; retain source-specific assertions
- Offense and governing context: Offense reference, jurisdiction, relevant legal version and conduct date
- Attributed participation mode: Direct, joint, through another person, other locally defined mode, disputed, unresolved
- Conduct and mental-element assessment: For each applicable element: alleged, supported, contested, found, rejected, unresolved
- Procedural disposition: Source-documented status per charge and proceeding, including pending review and superseding decisions
- Use and disclosure conditions: Purpose, audience, authority, restrictions, review date and unresolved conditions
Plane SOC: no invented physical properties.
Recognition not applicable Not applicable
Not applicable
Perpetration is a relationship between conduct, evidence and applicable law that cannot be identified from a person's appearance.
Capabilities and actions required Filled
- Attach a qualified perpetration attribution to a specific person, act and incident.
- Compare alleged contributions with the applicable offense elements and participation categories.
- Trace each attribution to evidence and expose contradictory or exculpatory material.
- Produce summaries that distinguish allegations, admissions, findings and unresolved issues.
- Update affected records when identity matches, charges or judicial decisions change.
- Assess whether a proposed disclosure or consequential use has sufficient authority and support.
Hazards and failure modes required Filled
- Incorrect attribution can damage reputation and expose a person to discrimination or retaliation.
- Treating allegations as established facts can undermine the presumption of innocence and fair proceedings.
- Inferring perpetration from appearance or demographic characteristics can produce discriminatory decisions.
- Unnecessary disclosure of identifying information can threaten the safety and privacy of people connected to a case.
Standards and interfaces required Filled
- The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, establishes fair trial guarantees and the presumption of innocence in Article 14.
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, states the presumption of innocence for people charged with penal offences in Article 11.
Context of use required Filled
- The term is used in criminal justice, criminology and accounts of specific offences to describe the person who committed the conduct.
- Records should distinguish established perpetration from an allegation, suspicion or charge and identify the relevant offence and jurisdiction.
- The attribution concerns particular conduct and should not be treated as an enduring personal identity.
Sources Filled
- Wikidata item Q897438: criminal perpetrator - identity and sense of the item
- Wikipedia (de): Täter (Strafrecht) - general description of the item
Open questions
- Does the registry intend 'criminal perpetrator' to cover natural persons only, or also organizations capable of criminal responsibility under some legal frameworks?
- Should the registry term denote actual perpetration while this model represents qualified claims about it, or does the registry explicitly include alleged perpetrators?
- Which jurisdiction-specific participation categories belong within perpetrator scope, and which require links to neighboring accomplice or accessory models?
- Which authoritative sources and review rules should govern disputed identities, conflicting decisions and attribution updates?
- What jurisdiction- and purpose-specific restrictions apply to records involving children, sealed proceedings, expungement or public disclosure?
Machine files
Provenance
thing registry research (pass 2) · unreviewed
Built from: models/things/publications/thing-q897438/spec.json