One of the most complex aspects, when talking about automatism and madness, is the similarity between them and, therefore, delineating a clear distinction could be difficult. To prevent this problem, English jurisprudence has defined a differentiation: "insane automatism" or insanity is caused by internal factors and "sane automatism" by external factors (for example a blow to the head). The first, if successfully proven, leads to a special verdict: a hospital order, a protective order or as an absolute release. On the other hand, the defense of automatism can result in a simple acquittal. According to the Judicial Commission, the most common diagnosis for those declared not guilty due to mental illness is schizophrenia, followed by mood disorders, epilepsy and post-ictal state1. The defense of insanity is defined by the M'Naughten Rules2 which establish that it must be proven that the accused, at the time of the crime, was suffering from a defect of reason, resulting from a disease of the mind3 and that he was not aware of what he was doing was wrong. Recently the definition of 'mental illness' has been modernized to “a deterioration in mental functioning caused by a medical condition”4. The problem that arises when applying M'Naughten is that, in addition to diseases that would commonly be recognized as 'of the mind', such as psychosis, there are others that common belief would not include in the group were it not for the relationship 'Rules' , such as diabetes, sleepwalking and epilepsy. Furthermore, it is not necessary for the disease to have a mental and not an organic origin. What allows us to distinguish the applicability of the defenses of insanity rather than those of automatism is whether the factors that caused the illness are, in turn, internal or external. distinct...... middle of paper...... sleepwalking is to be considered a metallic anomaly. The difference in verdict in all the cases cited above and therefore the differentiation between the two defenses has the main purpose of delineating subjects who may be socially dangerous and individuals in whom the kidnapping, in the context of which they have committed an illicit act, is a isolated event that is unlikely to be repeated. The first major issue in this matter is the distinction between "brain" and "mind", which are very different "concepts", a person who suffers from schizophrenia and commits a wrongful act, should be legally treated differently from a person who committed the same act but suffered a hyperglycemic crisis. This leads to the problem of distinguishing between internal and external causes. In most cases there is a clear and decisive competition of both instead of a clear mutual exclusion.