Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Automatisms in non common law countries

J K Falk-Pedersen1

  • 1Norwegian Epilepsy Association, Oslo, Norway.

Medicine and Law
|January 1, 1997
PubMed
Summary

Legal systems differ on automatism defenses. Norway treats epileptic automatisms as unconscious acts, making them punishable, unlike some common law traditions. This offers insights for legal reform discussions.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same journal

CRIMINAL CONDUCT DUE TO DRUNKENNESS: CRITICAL EVALUATION OF BRAZILIAN TRAFFIC LEGISLATION.

Medicine and law·2019
Same journal

TRANSDISCIPLINARITY IN STRATEGIC DECISIONS FOR ONCOLOGICAL TREATMENTS.

Medicine and law·2019
Same journal

LAWS RELATED TO THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN'S HEALTH IN JAPAN.

Medicine and law·2019
Same journal

ANTICIPATED DIRECTIVES OF WILL, ADVANCE HEALTH CARE DIRECTIVE, HEALTH CARE ATTORNEY: AN ISSUE OF SELF-DETERMINATION.

Medicine and law·2019
Same journal

HEALTH LAW AND ELDERLY PERSONS.

Medicine and law·2019
Same journal

IS A 'NO FAULT' COMPENSATION SCHEME THE ANSWER TO THE PROBLEMS OF TORT IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE?

Medicine and law·2019

Area of Science:

  • Legal Studies
  • Criminal Law
  • Neuroscience

Background:

  • Common law traditions distinguish between sane and insane automatisms, often labeling epileptic automatisms as insane.
  • This distinction surprises legal professionals from civil law or mixed legal systems.
  • Comparative legal analysis can inform reform efforts in common law countries.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To provide comparative material on how automatisms are handled in non-common law systems.
  • To analyze the Norwegian criminal law system's approach to automatisms.
  • To discuss potential implications for legal reforms in common law jurisdictions.

Main Methods:

  • Comparative legal analysis of criminal law systems.
  • Focus on the Norwegian Penal Code and its provisions on unconscious acts.
  • Review of legal doctrines regarding automatisms, particularly epileptic automatisms.

Main Results:

  • Norway does not distinguish between sane and insane automatisms.
  • Acts committed during automatism are considered 'relative unconsciousness' and are generally not punishable under Section 44 of the Penal Code.
  • Exceptions exist for self-induced intoxication from alcohol or drugs.

Conclusions:

  • The Norwegian approach offers a model where epileptic automatisms are not inherently deemed 'insane'.
  • This comparative perspective can guide discussions on reforming automatism defenses in common law countries.
  • Further examination of expert roles and other European legal systems is warranted.

Related Experiment Videos