Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Calls for Rules on Fully Autonomous Weapons; Live Coverage of Clancy Trial. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired August 27, 2026 - 09:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:11]

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: The United Nations and the Red Cross are warning countries to crack down on fully autonomous weapons. What we're talking about really here is killer robots. The push comes as we're seeing more advanced drones and other weaponry used in the Russia-Ukraine war and other conflicts. They're stopping short of calling for a ban, but they say international rules are critical to protect innocent civilians.

Joining me now is Paul Scharre. He is the executive vice president from the Center for a New American Security.

Let me ask you this. We've all seen the movies, "The Terminator," we've seen "iRobot." What are your concerns about where we are going when it comes to these kinds of weapons that, you know, the lay person is going to say, yes, they're there killer robots?

PAUL SCHARRE, EXECUTIVE VP, CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN SECURITY: Well, there's no question that we are on the precipice of crossing a line where we hand over lethal decision making from humans to machines in war. And I think that raises some very troubling questions about controlling violence in warfare, about avoiding civilian casualties. We've seen some troubling reports out of the war in Ukraine of some initial uses of fully autonomous weapons, on both sides, on -- by Russia and Ukraine. And these are early days still, but we could end up in a place where the next few years we see much more widespread deployment of these weapons.

SIDNER: I was going to ask you how close we are to seeing these weapons on a -- on a mass scale, because you're saying that it appears that the future is here, that they already exist, that there -- there is weaponry out there that can do things without a human pushing that forward, making that happen.

SCHARRE: Well, some initial uses is really what we've seen so far. And the technology is certainly real, it's doable today, but is not yet deployed in a large scale. So, Ukraine is fielding about four million drones a year. That's an enormous number of drones. But almost all of these are remotely piloted. They're controlled by humans.

What's different is that both Russia and Ukraine are experimenting with drones that could fly out to an area and then using artificial intelligence on board that can identify targets, generally military targets like in one report a Russian drone attacked a Ukrainian gas station, going after pumps and propane tanks. And it uses the A.I. to then find these targets and attack them all on its own without humans intervening or approving those specific targets.

SIDNER: I mean, you can imagine the scenarios here, whether it is actual warfare or whether someone gets their hands on something that means to do nefarious damage to people.

I do want to ask you what your biggest concerns are. What is the biggest danger here as you see A.I. moving into this space where a machine essentially is making decisions on something that could kill you?

SCHARRE: Well, of course, the real danger is that she gets it wrong, that it's targeting civilians either intentionally or accidentally, that the machine is not taking into account that there might be civilians nearby. Maybe there's a valid military object, there's a tank parked in front of a hospital, and attacking that tank would cause civilian harm. And that's not allowed under the law of war. Militaries have to account for that.

And then, of course, there's a risk that some groups, terrorists, or even some countries who don't really care about adherence to the law of war use these weapons to deliberately target civilians, or we head down a slippery slope where countries, and even individuals, sort of offload their moral responsibility to the machine.

[09:35:05]

Well, I'm not doing it. The machine is doing it. And then we see more civilian harm in warfare.

SIDNER: It's really terrifying, I have to say, when you start talking through the possible scenarios. Do you have possible solutions, things that you are hoping that governments in particular look at here? But frankly, with A.I., any civilian who is using A.I. could eventually figure all of this out as well.

SCHARRE: Right. It's not going to be possible to stop the availability of the technology. A.I. is so widely available. Drones are so cheap they can be bought for a few hundred dollars online.

I think where countries can come together is surrounding the use of anti-personnel autonomous weapons, banning their use, weapons that would deliberately target people rather than military objects. There's precedent for this with bans surrounding anti-personnel landmines. And what that could do is make it much harder for people to build these kinds of weapons. So, rather than them being widely available, like, say, assault rifles are, instead, it's something that someone has to make by hand in their garage on their own. And that just lowers the number of these -- a world where there are millions and millions of autonomous weapons targeting people in the world is not a great one to live in.

SIDNER: No.

Thank you so much for explaining all of that to us. Paul Scharre, appreciate your time this morning.

Now, I just want to give you a quick look here. These are live pictures happening right this moment inside court. Closing arguments in the Lindsay Clancy trial getting underway as I'm speaking to you. We are keeping an eye on it.

Stay with us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:41:27]

BERMAN: All right, the breaking news. We want to take you to Plymouth, Massachusetts, where the judge is finishing up jury instructions in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy.

Let's listen in.

JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN, PLYMOUTH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: In considering whether the commonwealth has met its burden of proof, you may consider all the evidence that's been presented at this trial. You may consider the facts underlying the crime and evidence of the defendant's actions before and after the crime. You may consider the opinions of any experts who testified and give those opinions whatever weight you think they deserve.

Now, in a moment, I'll instruct you on the elements of the offense that the commonwealth alleges that the defendant has committed. Remember that the commonwealth must prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible at the time that the crime was committed. That is, that the defendant did not lack criminal responsibility at that time. Therefore, it is the commonwealth's burden to prove at least one of the following beyond reasonable doubt.

One, that at the time of the alleged crime, the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect, or, two, that if the defendant did suffer from a mental disease or defect, she nonetheless retained a substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of her conduct and to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.

Now, as I previously instructed you, your decision should be based solely on the evidence and the law of this case. If the defendant is found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, the district attorney or another appropriate authority may, and generally does, petition the court to commit the defendant to a mental health facility or to Bridgewater State Hospital. If the court concludes that the defendant is mentally ill and that her discharge would create a substantial likelihood of serious harm to herself or others, then the court will grant the petition and commit the defendant to a proper mental health facility or to Bridgewater State Hospital.

Periodically, the court reviews the order of commitment. If the defendant is still suffering from a mental disease or defect and is still dangerous, then the court will order the defendant to continue to be committed to the mental health facility or to Bridgewater State Hospital. There is no limit to the number of such renewed orders of commitment as long as the defendant continues to be mentally ill and dangerous. If these conditions do continue, the defendant may remain committed for the duration of her life. If at some point the defendant is no longer mentally ill and dangerous, the court will order her discharged from the mental health facility or from Bridgewater State Hospital after a hearing.

The district attorney must be notified of any hearing concerning whether the person may be released and the district attorney may be heard at any such hearing. However, the final decision on whether to recommit or release the defendant is always made by the court.

Now, I'm going to go over at this point the specific elements of the charges against Miss Clancy. So, I want to talk first about murder in the first degree.

The defendant is charged with three separate indictments charging murder.

[09:45:00]

One count each relating to Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy and Callan Clancy. The instructions I'm going to give now apply to each separate indictment relating to each child.

There are two different degrees of murder. There's murder in the first degree and there's murder in the second degree. If you find the defendant guilty of murder, you shall decide the degree of murder.

The commonwealth alleges that the defendant committed murder in the first degree on the following theories. First, that it was murder with deliberate premeditation. And then second, and/or it was murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty. To find the defendant guilty on any of these theories of murder, you must be unanimous. That is, all of the deliberating jurors must agree that the commonwealth has met its burden of proving every required element of that theory beyond a reasonable doubt. You should check the appropriate box or boxes on the verdict slip as to each theory of what you agree unanimously. And I'll go over a little bit later the verdict slip and how that is going to be handled.

Now, so if you're unable to agree unanimously that the commonwealth has met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt either of these theories of first degree murder, you shall consider whether the commonwealth has proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder in the second degree. So, I'm going to begin by instructing you on the elements and the additional requirements of proof for each of these theories of murder in the first degree. And then I'll instruct you on murder in the second degree.

All right, so, number one, I'll first define the elements of murder in the first degree with deliberate premeditation. To prove the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree with deliberate premeditation, the commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements. One, the defendant caused the death of Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy and/or Callan Clancy. Two, the defendant intended to kill Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy and/or Callan Clancy. That is the defendant consciously and purposefully intended to cause Cora Clancy's, Dawson Clancy's and/or Callan Clancy's death. And three, that the defendant committed the killing with deliberate premeditation. That is, she decided to kill after a period of reflection.

I'll now discuss each of these requirements in more detail.

The first element is that the defendant caused the death of Cora, Dawson and/or Callan Clancy. The defendant's act is the cause of death where the act, in a natural and continuous sequence results in death, and without which death would not have occurred. The second element is that the defendant intended to kill Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, and/or Callan Clancy. That is, the defendant consciously and purposefully intended to cause the death. The third element is that the defendant committed the killing with deliberate premeditation. That is, she decided to kill after a period of reflection. Deliberate premeditation does not require any particular length of time of reflection. A decision to kill may be formed over a period of days, hours or even seconds. The key is the sequence of the thought process, and it would be first the consideration whether to second, second, the decision to kill, and, third, the killing arising from that decision. There is no deliberate premeditation where the action is taken so quickly that a defendant takes no time to reflect on the action, and then to decide to do it.

In deciding whether the defendant intended to kill the deceased and whether she formed that intent with deliberate premeditation, you may consider any credible evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental impairment or was affected by her consumption of prescription drugs. A defendant may form the required intent and act with deliberate premeditation, even if she suffered from a mental impairment or consumed prescription drugs. But you may consider that evidence.

Now, I want to talk about the second theory of first degree murder, which is murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty. Now, you shall consider this theory of murder in the first degree, regardless of whether or not you find that the commonwealth has proved murder in the first degree with deliberate premeditation, which I just discussed. To prove the defendant guilty of murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty, the commonwealth must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

[09:50:04]

One, that the defendant caused the death of Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy and/or Callan Clancy. Second element, the defendant either, a, intended to kill Cora, Dawson and/or Callan Clancy, b, she intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Cora, Dawson and/or Callan Clancy, or, c, intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known, created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result. The third element was that the killing was committed with extreme atrocity and cruelty -- extreme atrocity or cruelty, I'm sorry.

I'll now discuss each of these requirements in more detail.

The first element to this theory is that the defendant caused the death of Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy and/or Callan Clancy. A defendant's act is the cause of death where the act is a natural and continuous sequence, results in death without which death would not have occurred. The second element is about the defendant's intent, which the commonwealth must prove in at least one of three ways. These are that the defendant, a, intended to kill Cora, Dawson and/or Callan Clancy, or, b, intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Cora, Dawson and/or Callan Clancy, or, c, intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known, created a plane and strong likelihood that death would result.

As you can see to this intent element, the commonwealth satisfies its burden if it proves the defendant's intent beyond a reasonable doubt in any one of those three ways. The first way of proving intent that the defendant intended to kill is the same as the second element of murder in the first degree, with deliberate premeditation, which I discussed a few minutes ago. The second and third ways of proving intent are different from any element of murder in the first degree, with deliberate premeditation. So, the second way is that the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Cora, Dawson and/or Callan Clancy. Grievous bodily harm means severe injury to the body. The third way to prove this is that the defendant intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known, created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result.

Let me help you to understand how to analyze this third way of proving the defendant's intent. You must first determine whether the defendant intended to perform the act that caused the death. So, if you find that the defendant intended to perform the act, then you must determine what the defendant herself actually knew about the relevant circumstances at the time she acted. Then you must determine whether under the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known that the act created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result. In deciding whether the defendant intended to kill, intended to cause grievous bodily harm, or intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known, created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result, you may consider any credible evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental impairment, or was affected by her consumption of prescription drugs. A defendant may have the requisite intent, even if she suffered from a mental impairment or consumed drugs. But you may consider such evidence in determining whether the commonwealth has proved this element.

Now, the third element in this theory is that the killing was committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty. Extreme atrocity means an act that is extremely wicked or brutal, appalling, horrifying or utterly revolting. Extreme cruelty means that the defendant caused the person's death by a method that surpassed the cruelty inherent in the taking of a human life. You must determine whether the method or means of killing is so shocking as to amount to murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty. The inquiry focuses on the defendant's actions in terms of the manner and means of inflicting death, and on the resulting effect on the deceased.

[09:55:05]

In deciding whether the commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused the death with extreme atrocity or cruelty, you must consider the following factors. One, whether the defendant was indifferent to or took pleasure in the suffering of the deceased. Two, whether the defendant's method or means of killing was reasonably likely to substantially increase or prolong the conscious suffering of the deceased. Or, three, whether the means used by the defendant were excessive and out of proportion to what would be needed to kill a person. In considering whether the means used by the defendant were excessive and out of proportion to what would be needed to kill a person, you may consider, a, the extent of the injuries to the deceased.

BERMAN: All right, you've been listening to jury instructions from Plymouth, Massachusetts. The judge speaking to the jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial. She, of course, the mother who killed her three young children. At issue is whether she had control of her actions. She has pleaded not guilty basically by reasons of insanity. The judge giving the jury instructions right now. Closing arguments kick off in just a few minutes. Of course, CNN will be covering this all day long.

Thank you so much for joining us. This has been CNN NEWS CENTRAL. "THE SITUATION ROOM" up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)