Abstract
This article challenges the common law principles governing the concept of involuntariness and its subset, automatism. It argues that the courts have misconceived the concept as having to do with unconsciousness and its derivatives, deliberation and intention. In their place, involuntariness should be defined in terms of lack of control in the sense of a total inability to contain one's actions. Such a definition will do much to clarify the confusing state of the current law, especially in relation to cases of insane automatism.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
