Rationality Was Lost on the United States Supreme Court in Its Kohler Decision

In its recent Kahler decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Kansas' abolition of the state's insanity defense was constitutional. It did so by framing the matter as a choice between the state's mens rea defense and a moral capacity defense, then mischaracterizing the mens rea defense as a type of insanity defense. In analyzing the two approaches, the Court missed the fundamental importance of rationality in criminal mental responsibility, a constitutional requirement for other criminal competencies, and a condition well described in the Court's Panetti ruling. The Court's acceptance of the abolition of a special insanity defense is a public policy in the direction of further criminalizing and punishing rather than providing prompt and proper treatment to those with serious mental illness, at a time when increasing modern research demonstrates the success of insanity acquittee dispositions with improved treatment and management resulting in lower rates of relapse and criminal recidivism.

Automated summary

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent Kahler decision deemed Kansas' abolition of the insanity defense constitutional, but failed to recognize the significance of rationality in criminal mental responsibility. By mischaracterizing the mens rea defense, the Court overlooked the constitutional requirement for rationality and the success of insanity acquittee dispositions with improved treatment. This judgement reflects a public policy that further criminalizes and punishes individuals with mental illness rather than providing appropriate and timely treatment.