Automatisms in non common law countries

• Published in: Medicine and law Vol. 16; no. 2; pp. 359 - 365
• Main Author: Falk-Pedersen, J K
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 1997
• Subjects: Automatism - diagnosis; Cross-Cultural Comparison; Epilepsy - diagnosis; Europe; Expert Testimony - legislation & jurisprudence; Humans; Insanity Defense; Mental Competency - legislation & jurisprudence; Europe
• ISSN: 0723-1393

The distinction made in the common law tradition between sane and insane automatisms, and in particular the labelling of epileptic automatisms as insane, are legal concepts which surprise and even astonish lawyers of other traditions, whether they work within a civil law system or one with elements both from civil law and common law. It could be useful to those lawyers, doctors and patients struggling for a change in the common law countries to receive comparative material from other countries. Thus, the way automatisms are dealt with in non-common law countries will be discussed with an emphasis on the Norwegian criminal law system. In Norway no distinction is made between sane and insane automatisms and the plea Not Guilty by virtue of epileptic automatism is both available and valid assuming certain conditions are met. No. 44 of the Penal Code states that acts committed while the perpetrator is unconscious are not punishable. Automatisms are regarded as "relative unconsciousness", and thus included under No. 44. Exceptions may be made if the automatism is a result of self-inflicted intoxication following the consumption of alcohol or (illegal) drugs. Also, the role and relevance of experts as well as the law of some other European countries will be briefly discussed.