Automatism And Insanity

One of the most complex aspects, when it comes to automatism and insanity, is the similarity between them and, therefore outline a clear distinction might be difficult.

To prevent this problem, English case law has defined a differentiation: ‘insane automatism’ or insanity is caused by internal factors and ‘sane automatism’ by external factors (for example a blow to the head).

The former, if successfully demonstrated, leads to a special verdict: a hospital order, a supervision order or as absolute discharge. On the other hand, the defence of automatism may results in a simple acquittal.

According to Law Commission, the most common diagnosis for those found not guilty by reason of insanity is schizophrenia, then mood disorders, epilepsy and postictal state1.

The insanity defence is defined by the M’Naughten Rules2 which state that it must be proved that the defendant, at the time of the act, was under a defect of reason, derived from disease of the mind3 and that he wasn’t aware that what he was doing was wrong. Recently the definition of ‘disease of the mind’ has been modernised in “an impairment of mental functioning caused by medical condition”4.

The problem arising applying M’Naughten is that, besides the diseases that would commonly been recognised as ‘of the mind’, like psychosis, there are others that the common belief wouldn’t include in the group if not for the ‘Rules’ ratio, for example, diabetes, sleepwalking and epilepsy. Moreover the disease is not required to have a mental rather than organic origin.

What permits to distinguish the applicability of the defences of insanity rather than the automatism one is whether the factors which caused the disease are, in turn, internal or external.

Unfortunately the distinct...

... middle of paper ...

... somnambulism is to be regarded as a metal abnormality.

The difference of verdicts in all the cases above mentioned and therefore the differentiation between the two defences has mainly the purpose to outline subjects who may be socially dangerous and individuals where the seizure, under which they committed an unlawful act, is an isolated event which is unlikely to recur.

The first main issue in this matter is the distinction between ‘brain’ and ‘mind’, which are very different “concepts”, a person who suffers of schizophrenia and commits a unlawful act, should be legally treated differently from a person who commit the same act but had suffered of an hyperglycaemic seizure. This leads to the problem of distinguishing between internal and external causes. Most of the time there is a clear and decisive concurrence of both instead of a clear reciprocal exclusion.