Talk:Automatism (law)

top section
I've read this article and I still don't know what automatism is. The article assumes that the reader already knows what the word means, and so launches into background concepts, etc., without defining the term. Probably all that's needed is the addition of a simple defining sentence or two in the first paragraph. Excellent! Thanks. KarlBunker 17:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Per the above note, I've added such a sentence. Cheers! BD2412  T 17:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The essence of the defence is that the accused has not acted and so has not committed the actus reus, hence any use of the word "act" or words of positive commission must be avoided in a definition. I have made an amendment which I hope preserves the meaning while making things a little more clear. Thank you all for helping to produce the most comprehensible version of this difficult concept. David91 02:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It says at the bottom of the article that automatism in relation to the M'Naghten rules isn't that significant anymore. Although automatism is a separate and well established offence, there is some importance in relation to diabetes. In the M'Naghten rules a 'disease of the mind' is an internal cause and only hyperglycaemia due to a not taking insulin can usually fall within this. In automatism the act has to be cause by external factors, and so hypoglycaemia (which was well explained, I will add) can only usually fall within automatism. This distinction in the law is significant, and there is a lot of academic debate surrounding it. I don't mean to be too pedantic, but having studied this area of the law, it is evident how important this distinction is in this topic. This part of the article as it is really more of an opinion (and if it is from an academic, should probably be cited as so). Hope this is helpful, as it may help with the explanation of the defence. Apologies also for my lack of wikipedia skills =] 137.73.88.101 (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

merger
What exactly is the rationale for not merging the case law article for automatism? I don't see any mention of a civil law concept of automatism. EECavazos (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Very Essayish
I read through the article and also looked through the article's revision history of the last 4 years (which, relatively speaking, isn't much) and the general tone of the article is more like a legal essay or quite possibly a textbook rather than a formally written article. It's relatively informative if you have a clear enough idea of the subject matter (although some more references would be nice) but the tone past the first couple of sentences is completely inappropriate and can actually make it difficult for some people to comprehend. I'm flagging it and hopefully it can be rewritten to sound more straightforward and formal. KirkCliff2 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm new and don't know how to post a comment. I write to note that the article was virtually silent on American law. I'm in the midst of briefing this issue in a trial court case in Michigan. While Michigan hasn't addressed the automatism issue, a great many other American judisdictions have done so, most of which have decided that automatism is not an insanity defense but goes to the issue of intent. This, in turn, affects the burden of proof since insanity is normally an affirmative defense with the burden of proof on the defense, while the issue of intent (mens rea)is an element of any criminal act and the burden of proving intent rests with the prosecution. Only a few American states have considered it to be an issue of actus rea.

MarkPeterStevens (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can provide some citations, this information can go into the article pretty much as is. bd2412  T 02:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Automatism (law). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051222174337/http://www.colorado.edu:80/iec/SP200RW/sleep.htm to http://www.colorado.edu/iec/SP200RW/sleep.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041211075146/http://www.mtsinai.org:80/pulmonary/Sleep/sleep-murder.htm to http://www.mtsinai.org/pulmonary/Sleep/sleep-murder.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.jur.lu.se/Internet/Biblioteket/Examensarbeten.nsf/0/403832FDCB0EB5A9C1257029005307D7/$File/exam.pdf?OpenElement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment posted to the top of the page
The comment about the insanity defence being introduced to common law in the 19th century is wrong on several grounds. Common law defence predates this, statutory insanity defence introduced in 1800 which is the 18th century. Jack Hawkins legal academic &#38; Times reader (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Night Terrors
Whenever l have a night terror myself, l am usually completely immobile and the cause of the terror often is someone by my bed talking to me, or else l hear voices or laughter. The only exception to this are my first two night terrors, which involved me spinning around my bedroom in a circle - and l don't know what was happening to me at the time.Tnarrud3 (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Contradictory?
In the 2nd paragraph of the introduction it says "The prosecution does not have to disprove the defence as is sometimes erroneously reported" but in the 2nd paragraph of 'scope' it says "when the issue is raised by the defence.. the prosecution then has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was acting voluntarily".

May need rewording to remove this apparent contradiction. 2A0A:EF40:E4F:CE01:EDBA:FFF0:6714:58CD (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)