This ruling essentially likens the state of automatism to temporary insanity, which is somewhat understandable - convicting someone of murder, assault, manslaughter or rape requires some form of intent to commit these criminal acts. Those who got themselves drunk or stoned into delirium don't understand what they are doing; hence, the defense based on the lack of conscious intent. However; I do have a huge problem with no automatic minimum level of guilt/punishment set by the SC when this defense is used successfully. It simply must not result in full acquittal.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
|