Case No. 18-6135 | Kan.
Preview by Michael Fischer, Online Editor
In response to several high-profile cases wherein defendants were found not guilty by reason of insanity, the State of Kansas passed legislation in 1995 which effectively abolished the insanity defense for criminal defendants. Thirteen years later, Kraig Kahler was experiencing numerous marital issues with his wife and began suffering from depression and obsessive compulsive disorder. Refusing to take the medicine prescribed by his psychiatrist as directed, Kahler became increasingly abusive towards his wife and she later filed for divorce. The situation tragically came to a violent head in November 2009 when Kahler shot and killed his wife, her grandmother, and his two teenage daughters. At his trial, a defense expert testified that due to his mental illness, Kahler had lost control and could not have rationally made the decision to kill his family. In accordance with Kansas law, the trial judge instructed the jury that they could only consider Kahler’s mental illness in determining whether he intended to kill his family. Thereafter, the jury found him guilty and Kahler was sentenced to death.
Kahler’s conviction was upheld by the Kansas Supreme Court. He subsequently appealed to the United States Supreme Court which granted certiorari in March 2019. The question before the Court is whether Kansas’s mens rea approach to insanity violates the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.
In his brief, Kahler argues that abolishing the insanity defense violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it is a legal protection deeply rooted in the common law of the United States. See Petitioner’s Reply Brief at 1–4, Kahler v. Kansas, No. 18-6135 (U.S. filed Aug. 30, 2019). Additionally, he asserts that while the Due Process Clause does not require any particular insanity test, Kansas’s abandonment of the moral culpability standard is unsupported by the modern mens rea regime. Id. at 12–13. Finally, Kahler argues that abolishing the insanity defense violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment because it serves no justification for punishment to impose criminal penalties on people who cannot be deterred, are not morally culpable, and require rehabilitation outside of the criminal justice system. Id. at 18–20.
Kansas counters that abolishing the insanity defense does not violate the Due Process Clause since it is not deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the nation. See Brief for Respondent at 18, Kahler v. Kansas, No. 18-6135 (U.S. filed Aug. 2, 2019). This, Kansas contends, is due to the fact that the traditional Anglo-American approaches to insanity have varied over time and because there remains profound disagreement over how to implement the test. Id. at 18–34. The State further argues that it “reasonably determined” that individuals who voluntarily commit a crime are blameworthy, even if they do not believe that the act was morally wrong. Id. at 40. Lastly, Kansas asserts the State’s mens rea standard does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment since the Eighth Amendment does not “constrain the substance of state criminal liability.” Id. at 47.