  Regulating artificial intelligence (AI) has become necessary in light of its
deployment in high-risk scenarios. This paper explores the proposal to extend
legal personhood to AI and robots, which had not yet been examined through the
lens of the general public. We present two studies (N = 3,559) to obtain
people's views of electronic legal personhood vis-\`a-vis existing liability
models. Our study reveals people's desire to punish automated agents even
though these entities are not recognized any mental state. Furthermore, people
did not believe automated agents' punishment would fulfill deterrence nor
retribution and were unwilling to grant them legal punishment preconditions,
namely physical independence and assets. Collectively, these findings suggest a
conflict between the desire to punish automated agents and its perceived
impracticability. We conclude by discussing how future design and legal
decisions may influence how the public reacts to automated agents' wrongdoings.
