Talk:Automatism (law)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
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)
