User:Zyakub/sandbox

Two Types of Automatism
Automatism refers to the unconscious or involuntary behavior of an individual in any given circumstance. . Automatism can be of two types: Insane and Non-insane. Insane Automatism is caused by internal factors in the mind and refers to an incident caused by the "disease of the mind". In this instance, the criminal act is a result of a prior mental issue such as somnambulism. Non Insane Automatism is the result of external factors that affect behavior such as an injury to the head.

Automatism as a Defense
The diagnosis of autism does not automatically exempt an accused from prosecution and punishment. However, the nature and severity of the person’s impairment plays a large role in determining innocence or guilt. An accused is entitled to acquittal if the defense can raise a reasonable doubt to the court as to the defendant's mental state at the time of the offence. In order to successfully prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt, the concurrence of Mens Rea and Actus Reus to the jury. This can prove difficult in some cases because the defense is more likely to be able to create a doubt as to the intention of the accused. For example, in this case of Kenneth Parks, the prosecution was unable to prove any motive that Parks may have had to murder his mother in-law and father in-law. On the other hand, the Defense must be able to prove complete loss of mental control in order to be acquitted. In the case of Parks, the defense called 5 doctors classified as expert witnesses. These doctors testified that the incident did in fact occur while the accused was sleepwalking. They provided evidence that sleepwalking is not considered a neurological, psychiatric, or other mental illness, but rather a disorder of sleep. The arguments and evidence presented by the witnesses established that the chances of such an event reoccurring were very low. The trial judge instructed that if the jury found Mr. Parks to be in an episode of sleepwalking when the incident occurred, then this would lead to a finding of non-insane automatism. Therefore, the accused should be acquitted. This was subsequently the jury finding, and he was released. The court's ruling of non-insane automatism led the crown to appeal the case. The issue then being that of sleepwalking as a disease of the mind whereby the judge should have instructed the jury to consider Insaneinstead of Non-insane automatism.

Ontario Court of Appeal Ruling
The subsequent ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal held that in the initial trial, the judge mistakenly withheld the defense of insane automatism from the jury and sleepwalking was in fact to be considered a disease of the mind. The court concluded that the defense had laid a reasonable foundation for the argument of automatism. Following this appeal, Kennith Parks was completely acquitted. .