The defence of sane automatism and non-pathological criminal incapacity in South Africa: an epistemological intersection between psychology and law

Abstract

Psychologists and psychiatrists are frequently requested to offer expert opinion regarding the defences of non-pathological criminal incapacity and sane automatism – which are increasingly raised in criminal courts in South Africa. This article briefly explores the development of these defences in South African criminal law and highlights some of the conceptual and epistemological difficulties at the intersection between the law and psychology. The changing legal understandings of the concepts of sane automatism and non-pathological criminal incapacity require careful consideration by mental health experts, and, while these experts can undoubtedly assist the courts, they should be cautious of using reductionist methods to conflate psychological concepts with legal concepts.

Keywords

Nonpathological criminal incapacity psychology and law sane automatism South Africa

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arboleda-Florez

(2002). On automatism. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 15, 569–576.

Bennett

(2009). Criminal las as it pertains to ‘mentally incompetent’ defendants’: A McNaughton rule in the light of cognitive neuroscience. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, 43, 289–299.

Bourget

Gagne

Wood

S. F.

(2017). Dissociation: Defining the concept in criminal forensic psychiatry. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 45, 147–160.

Burchell

J. M.

Milton

(1997). Principles of criminal law (2nd ed.). Cape Town, South Africa: Juta.

Calcedo-Barba

Castelli Candia

Conejo Galindo

Garcı’a Solano

(2004). The interaction between insight and legal capacity in dementia. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 17, 397–400.

Coles

E. M.

(2000a). Scientific support for the legal concept of automatism. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 7, 33–50.

Coles

E. M.

(2000b). The emperor in the courtroom: Psychology and pseudo-science. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 11(1), 1–6.

Fenwick

Cantab

(1987). Somnambulism and the law. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 5, 343–357.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

10.

Hirschi

Gottfredson

M. R.

(1994). The generality of deviance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.

11.

Hoctor

(2011). Tracing the origins of the defence of non-pathological incapacity in South African criminal law. Fundamina, 17, 70–82.

12.

Joubert

P. M.

van Staden

C. W.

(2016). Behaviour that underpins non-pathological criminal incapacity and automatism: Toward clarity for psychiatric testimony. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 49, 10–16.

13.

Kaliski

(2006). Psycholegal Assessment in South Africa. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

14.

Kaplan

H. I.

Sadock

B. J.

Grebb

J. A.

Kaplan

H. I.

(1994). Kaplan and Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry: Behavioural sciences, clinical psychiatry. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

15.

McSherry

(2004). Criminal responsibility, “fleeting” states of mental impairment, and the power of self-control. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27, 445–457.

16.

Maoz

Yaffe

(2015). What does neuroscience tell us about criminal responsibility? Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 3, 120–139.

17.

Nelson

(2012). Non-pathological criminal incapacity in South Africa – A disjunction between legal and psychological discourse? A case study. Cape Town, South Africa: Department of Psychology, University of Cape Town.

18.

R v Mkize 1959 (2) SA 260 (N).

19.

Republic of South Africa. (1967). Commission of inquiry into the responsibility of mentally deranged persons and related matters. Pretoria: Republic of South Africa.

20.

Republic of South Africa. (2008a). Criminal procedure act no. 51 of 1977. Pretoria, South Africa: Juta Law.

21.

Republic of South Africa. (2008b). Child justice act no. 75 of 2008. Pretoria, South Africa: Government Gazette.

22.

S v Arnold, 1985 (3) SA 256 (C).

23.

S v Campher, 1987 (1) SA 940 (A).

24.

S v Chretien 1981 (1) SA 1097 (A).

25.

S v Cunningham 1996 (1) SACR 631 (A).

26.

S v Eadie 2002 (1) SACR 663 (SCA).

27.

S v Francis 1999 SCA (253/97) Unreported.

28.

S v Laubscher 1988 (1) SA 163 (A).

29.

S v Moses 1996 (1) SACR 701 (C).

30.

S v Nursingh 1995 (2) SACR 331 (D).

31.

S v Ramdass 2017 (1) SACR 30 (KZD).

32.

S v Schoonwinkle 1953 (3) SA 136 (C).

33.

Singh

(2000). ‘Battered woman syndrome’: A possible defence in South African law for women who kill (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Faculty of Law, University of Natal, Durban, South Africa. Retrieved from http://docplayer.net/60309319-Battered-woman-syndrome-a-possible-defence-in-south-african-law-for-women-who-kill.html

34.

Snyman

C. R.

(2002). Criminal law. (4th ed.). Durban, South Africa: Butterworth.

35.

Steinberg

(2010). A dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Psychobiology, 52, 216–224. doi:10.1002/dev.20445

36.

Steinberg

Albert

Cauffman

Banich

I. M.

Graham

Woolard

(2008). Age differences in sensation seeking and impulsivity as indexed by behavior and self-report: Evidence for a dual systems model. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1764–1778. doi:10.1037/a0012955

37.

Ward

J. T.

Nobles

M. R.

Fox

K. A.

(2015). Disentangling self-control from its elements: A bifactor analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 595–627. doi:10.1007/s10940-014-9241-6

38.

Yeo

(2001). Putting voluntariness back into automatism. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 32, 387–406.