Abstract
In Kahler v. Kansas, the Supreme Court held that the Kansas did not violate the Due Process Clause when it abolished the insanity defense. The outcome was predictable, but it reached its result in a particularly odd way. The Court does not say that abolition of the insanity defense is constitutional, but rather that Kansas did not really abolish the insanity defense at all. I seek to show in this article that the Court’s analysis is wrong as a matter of constitutional law and proper understanding of criminal law principles. One important lesson from this case is this: when you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
