Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

to the defendant not knowing the “nature and qual-

ity of his act or that it was wrongful.” Defendants

who raise an automatism defense and who meet

M’Naghten standards would be adjudicated under the

“not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) standard.

The defendant who raises the defense and who does

not meet the standard would be claiming sane automa-

tism, seeking to challenge that his or her behavior was

simply not a voluntary act. If such a defense were suc-

cessful, the defendant would be acquitted and not sub-

jected to the possible consequences (e.g., commitment

to a psychiatric facility) faced by an NGRI acquittee.

British courts have indicated that sane automatism is

an acceptable defense when the defendant has suf-

fered from a defect of reason but not a disease of the

mind, usually due to some external physical factor.

The sequelae of a head injury or confusion as a result

of the administration of drugs would be examples of

such external causes of automatisms.

Matt C. Zaitchik

See also Criminal Responsibility, Assessment of; Criminal

Responsibility, Defenses and Standards; Insanity Defense,

Juries and

Further Readings

Borum, R., & Appelbaum, K. L. (1996). Epilepsy,

aggression, and criminal responsibility. Psychiatric

Services, 47(7), 762–763.

Reznek, L. (1997). Evil or ill? Justifying the insanity defense.

London: Routledge.

Schopp, R. F. (1991). Automatism, insanity, and the

psychology of criminal responsibility: A philosophical

inquiry.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

36 ———Automatism

A-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 36