The US Supreme Court is the highest in the land to which litigants turn to whenever they are dissatisfied with the judgments of lower courts. The Kahler v. Kansas (No. 18-6135) Case is one example where a defendant sought an appeal from the US Supreme Court. Kahler, the petitioner, was asking the US Supreme Court to determine that the Kansas Supreme Court had violated the due process in deciding his case in which he was accused of capital murder. The Kansas state had charged Kraig Kahler after he had murdered his wife, two daughters, and the wife's grandmother in 2009 (Hanna, 2009). Kahler's actions had followed a bitter divorce with his wife. Kahler argued he was not in the right mental state when he committed the atrocity. Thus, the court should have used the traditional insanity defense in deciding his case. The US Supreme Court decided the case 6-3 on 23 rd March 2020, affirming the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court.
Justice Elana Kagan wrote the US Supreme Court's opinion. The other Judges who backed the opinion were Chief Justice, Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. In deciding the case, the court stated that the due process could only be considered to have been violated if it “offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” The court stated that various strains of the insanity defense have been adopted in the US and hence do not form a fundamental approach. The insanity concept, even within the medical scope, is still contentious. Thus, in discarding the moral incapacity element of the insanity defense, Kansas had not flouted the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. More importantly, Kansas had not abolished the insanity defense since it still considered the cognitive capacity of defendants in deciding cases. The burden of proof, however, lies with the defendant. There is no particular moral incapacity (right or wrong) test that has been adopted. The court held that “Due process does not require Kansas to adopt an insanity test that turns on a defendant’s ability to recognize that his crime was morally wrong.” Hence, the Kansas Supreme Court had not flouted the due process in issuing its judgment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Justice Breyer wrote the dissenting opinion. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor backed Breyer's opinion. Breyer argued that Kansas had departed from a principle of justice that had been used within the US criminal justice system for several years that it met the threshold of being fundamental. Breyer noted that the insanity defense had been used as far back as in the M’ Naghten’s Case (HL 1843). The M’Naghten’s case had adopted two main approaches of the insanity defense, cognitive incapacity, and moral incapacity. Breyer cited several subsequent cases in which the approach had been used over the years. Thus, in striking out the moral incapacity approach, Kansas had not tinkered the concept, “Rather, it has eliminated the core of a defense that has existed for centuries: that the defendant, due to mental illness, lacked the mental capacity necessary for his conduct to be considered morally blameworthy.” Breyer noted that the traditional insanity defense was still used in the federal system and 45 state jurisdictions; hence Kansas and five other states are flouting an ingrained tradition, thus violating the due process. Breyer states that mentally ill defendants should not bear criminal responsibility for their acts.
The US Supreme Court determination in the Kahler v. Kansas Case is one judgment that will cause subsequent ripples within state jurisdictions. Since states are constitutionally allowed to set out the state crimes and procedures, more states are likely to readjust their insanity defense procedures. It is my view that the excision of the moral incapacity approach in the insanity defense is a good move since if defendants cannot substantially use their cognitive incapacity to their defense, they should not be allowed to use their moral incapacity to defend their actions. The adoption of both approaches makes the concept liable to abuse by defendants. The cognitive incapacity is enough to measure criminal culpability of defendants.
References
Hanna, J. (2009). Man charged with killing wife, 2 daughters . msnbc.com. Retrieved 25 April 2020, from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34210991/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/man-charged-killing-wife-daughters/#.XqQgGWgzZPY .
Supreme Court of the United States. (2020). Opinions of the Court - 2019 . Supremecourt.gov. Retrieved 25 April 2020, from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/19#list .
