In the field of criminal law, the case of Kenneth Parks stands out as a remarkable and intriguing example of a sleepwalking defense. In 1987, Parks, a Canadian, was acquitted of automatism charges of murder and attempted murder, saying he was sleepwalking at the time of the incident. This case has attracted the attention of legal professionals, psychologists and the general public, sparking debates about the nature of sleepwalking, its implications in criminal law and the complexity of determining criminal liability. In this essay, I will explore the case of Kenneth Parks and its implications for the legal and psychological understanding of sleepwalking as a defense. Through a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and legal arguments, I will argue that the Parks case challenges traditional notions of criminal liability and highlights the need for a nuanced approach to the intersection of law and psychology in the context of the defense of sleepwalking. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay The case of Kenneth Parks revolves around the events of May 24, 1987, when Parks, in an apparent sleepwalking state, walked through 14 miles to his in-laws' home and brutally attacked them, resulting in the death of his mother-in-law and serious injuries to his father-in-law. While the prosecution sought to hold Parks criminally responsible for these actions, his defense team presented evidence to support the claim that Parks was in a dissociative state at the time of the incident, rendering him unconscious and unaware of his actions. This defense was based on the concept of automatism, which refers to a state of unconsciousness or unconsciousness that negates the mental element of a criminal act, thereby exonerating the individual from criminal liability. One of the key pieces of evidence in Parks' case was the testimony of sleep disorder experts who attested to the plausibility of his sleepwalking defense. Sleep specialist Dr. Richard Klassen provided expert testimony on the phenomenon of parasomnia, a category of sleep disorders that includes sleepwalking. He explained the complex nature of parasomnias, emphasizing that individuals who experience these episodes do not consciously control their actions and may engage in complex, focused behaviors while in a state of altered consciousness. This testimony shed light on the scientific understanding of sleepwalking and its potential relevance in criminal cases, challenging traditional perceptions of criminal liability and highlighting the need for a nuanced approach to the assessment of mental states in criminal law. Additionally, the Parks case raised important questions. on the role of intention and conscience in criminal responsibility. While the legal system generally requires demonstration of criminal intent, or the mental element of a crime, in order to establish criminal liability, the concept of automatism challenges this requirement by asserting that the individual was not conscious or aware of his actions at the time of the offense. This raises complex ethical and legal dilemmas, as it requires us to confront the implications of holding individuals responsible for actions that occurred in a state of unconsciousness or altered consciousness. Furthermore, it highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of mental states and their relevance to criminal liability, particularly in cases involving sleep disorders and other conditions that may affect consciousness. Besides the legal and psychological implications, the Parks case also..