The state charged Kahler with capital murder. Karen and Lauren died in the hospital that night, and Karen’s grandmother died a few days later. Kahler’s daughter Emily was found dead at the scene. Then, Kahler made his way through the residence, shooting Karen’s grandmother and both of his daughters. Kahler let his son flee but shot Karen twice. Karen and Sean were in the kitchen when Kahler walked in and started shooting. Kahler entered the residence with a gun. On November 28, 2009, Kahler traveled to the residence of Karen’s grandmother in Burlingame, Kansas. Karen filed for divorce and took the children, and Kahler moved in with his parents after losing his job. He and his wife, Karen, were successful in their careers and had two teenage daughters, Emily and Lauren, and a 9-year-old son, Sean.
In 2008, the defendant, James Kahler, was part of a seemingly perfect family. Supreme Court held that due process does not require Kansas-or any other state-to adopt an insanity test that considers whether a defendant has the capacity to “recognize that his crime was morally wrong.” This Comment argues that (1) an insanity defense that considers whether a defendant was morally blameworthy should be constitutionalized as a fundamental right and (2) the Court went beyond the proper due process analysis by ruling that, even if it were possible to formulate a constitutional baseline for an insanity test that considers moral blameworthiness, the Court would not do so because of the complexity of the issue. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects fundamental rights and liberties that are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” and essential to maintaining “a fair and enlightened system of justice.” In Kahler v. Brandt, Am I Going Insane or Did Kansas Abolish the Insanity Defense?, 60 Washburn L.J. The complexity of a legal issue cannot replace the established rule that fundamental rights and liberties are those that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and essential to maintaining a fair and enlightened system of justice. Here, the Court analyzed the due process claim using complexity as its guiding factor. However, the appropriate guiding factor in a due process analysis is history. Therefore, a particular version of the insanity defense cannot be constitutionalized. The insanity defense is particularly complex due to the ever-evolving understandings of mental illness. The scope of criminal liability is complex and ever-changing, so its regulation is best left to states. A criminal defendant faces a high bar because a state rule about criminal liability violates due process only if it offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people. Supreme Court held that due process does not require states to adopt an insanity test that turns on a criminal defendant’s ability to recognize that their crime was morally wrong.
0 kommentar(er)
