翻訳と辞書 |
Automatism (case law) : ウィキペディア英語版 | Automatism (case law)
Automatism is a rarely used criminal defence which denies that the accused was criminally responsible for his or her actions. There are several limitations to the defence of automatism in English law. Prior fault generally excludes automatism. Intoxication generally excludes automatism, even when involuntary. Any defence that rests on insanity comes under the M'Naghten Rules. Under English law internal causes of automatism are generally judged to be insane automatism and so result in the special verdict ('not guilty by reason of insanity') rather than simple acquittal. ==Voluntariness== La Forest J. in the Canadian Supreme Court case of ''R v Parks'' (1992) 75 CCC (3d) 287, 302 asserted that automatism is "conceptually a subset of the voluntariness requirement." One of the main rationales of criminal law is to use the threat of punishment as a deterrent to future wrongdoing. But, if an individual is to be deterred, he or she must be acting under voluntary control. If something is interfering with this control, automatism may be available as an excuse. Duress is not an example of involuntary action as although the choices faced by the person under duress may be difficult, nonetheless they are still acting voluntarily. Some would describe action under duress as non-voluntary as opposed to involuntary. This distinction is emphasized by the exclusion of the defence of duress for murder. In the words of the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal in ''R v Milloy'' (1991) 54 A Crim. R. 340, Thomas J. says at 342-343, that for automatism to succeed: :impairment of relevant capacities as distinct from total deprivation of these capacities (not suffice ) … it is fundamental to a defence of automatism that the actor has no control over his actions.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)』 ■ウィキペディアで「Automatism (case law)」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|