Automatism: comparison of common law and civil law approaches--a search for the optimal.
This article reviews common and civil law approaches to automatism with discussion of legal definitions and the conditions in which automatism occurs. The common law approach to sane (exogenous) and insane (endogenous) automatism is examined. Despite a change in the law, which obviates mandatory incarceration for all persons found not guilty on the basis of insane automatism, the stigma of insanity remains. A number of Continental jurisdictions, though, have adopted an approach divorced from judgmental labels, whereby acts, which result from automatism, are classified under the rubric of unconsciousness. The article draws upon this approach, analyses alternatives to insane automatism and proposes instead an analysis by reference to "cognitive dysfunction", thereby removing all reference to the concept of insanity.
Beran
Roy G
RG
D001332:Automatism / Q000145:classification / Q000209:etiology*; D015984:Causality; D003134:Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D004827:Epilepsy / Q000150:complications*; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D007298:Insanity Defense; D013240:Stereotyping