Falk-Pedersen J K
Norwegian Epilepsy Association, Oslo, Norway.
Med Law. 1997;16(2):359-65.
The distinction made in the common law tradition between sane and insane automatisms, and in particular the labelling of epileptic automatisms as insane, are legal concepts which surprise and even astonish lawyers of other traditions, whether they work within a civil law system or one with elements both from civil law and common law. It could be useful to those lawyers, doctors and patients struggling for a change in the common law countries to receive comparative material from other countries. Thus, the way automatisms are dealt with in non-common law countries will be discussed with an emphasis on the Norwegian criminal law system. In Norway no distinction is made between sane and insane automatisms and the plea Not Guilty by virtue of epileptic automatism is both available and valid assuming certain conditions are met. No. 44 of the Penal Code states that acts committed while the perpetrator is unconscious are not punishable. Automatisms are regarded as "relative unconsciousness", and thus included under No. 44. Exceptions may be made if the automatism is a result of self-inflicted intoxication following the consumption of alcohol or (illegal) drugs. Also, the role and relevance of experts as well as the law of some other European countries will be briefly discussed.
普通法传统中对神志正常的自动行为和精神错乱的自动行为的区分，尤其是将癫痫性自动行为归类为精神错乱，是令其他传统的律师感到惊讶甚至震惊的法律概念，无论他们是在大陆法系内工作，还是在兼具大陆法和普通法元素的法律体系内工作。对于那些在普通法国家努力推动变革的律师、医生和患者而言，获取来自其他国家的比较材料可能会有所帮助。因此，将讨论非普通法国家处理自动行为的方式，并重点介绍挪威刑法体系。在挪威，不存在对神志正常的自动行为和精神错乱的自动行为的区分，并且只要满足某些条件，因癫痫性自动行为而提出的无罪抗辩既可行又有效。《刑法典》第44条规定，犯罪人在无意识状态下实施的行为不可罚。自动行为被视为“相对无意识状态”，因此包含在第44条范围内。如果自动行为是因饮酒或（非法）吸毒后自我造成的醉酒所致，则可能为例外情况。此外，还将简要讨论专家的作用和相关性以及其他一些欧洲国家的法律。
