This isn't nearly as complex as the article or comments make it out to be. And it would be helpful to this discussion to actually use the definition of "murder"

This isn't nearly as complex as the article or comments make it out to be. And it would be helpful to this discussion to actually use the definition of "murder": "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." An AI computer cannot commit murder. A monkey cannot commit murder. A rabid dog cannot commit murder. Only a human can commit murder. So if HAL was programmed to kill, HAL did not commit murder, however maybe those that programmed it did. It's more likely that HAL would be treated under a different, but well understood area of the law: products liability. If a chain-saw malfunctions and kills you, you can sue the chain-saw manufacturer, and if egregious enough maybe someone at the company will go to jail. If a self-driving car kills you, you can sue the car manufacturer, or maybe your insurance company will. If an AI named HAL kills you, you can sue whoever created it. A computer accidentally or intentionally killing someone is not murder. It's a malfunctioning device, and the people who created it should be at fault, not the device itself (kind of like sending a chain saw to jail). I'm constantly surprised at how confused this topic is.