Supreme Court Grapples With Moral, Legal Complexities Of Insanity Defense While Kicking Off New Term
There appeared to be little consensus among the high court's justices after oral arguments in a case about whether states can abolish the insanity defense in criminal cases.
The New York Times:
Supreme Court Opens New Term With Argument On Insanity Defense
In the first argument of its new term, the Supreme Court on Monday considered whether states may abolish the insanity defense, a question that seemed to puzzle several of the justices, who drew conflicting lessons from history, moral philosophy, constitutional law and the brutal crimes at the heart of the case. James Kahler of Kansas was sentenced to death in 2011 for killing four family members, but his lawyers said he had severe depression that made it impossible for him to understand reality or to distinguish right from wrong. (Liptak, 10/7)
CNBC:
Supreme Court Weighs Insanity Defense And Split Juries In Murder Cases
[James Kraig Kahler] was convicted of murdering his wife, two children, and his wife’s grandmother in a fit of rage over Thanksgiving weekend in 2009. After his wife left him and pursued a relationship with a female co-worker, Kahler grew obsessed, turned to stalking, and was fired from his job. While in a state that one doctor described as “stress induced short-term dissociation,” he shot and killed his family members while chasing them room to room through their home in a spree that was partially recorded on the grandmother’s Life Alert system. (Higgins, 10/6)
SCOTUSblog:
Argument Analysis: Justices Open New Term With Questions And Concerns About Insanity Defense
Arguing for Kahler, attorney Sarah Schrup began by emphasizing that, for centuries, a defendant’s culpability hinged on his ability to distinguish between right and wrong. The insane, she stressed, lack that capacity. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked whether a state could decide that it wanted to “rethink” the insanity defense, creating the prospect that someone could be found guilty but nonetheless insane and then committed to a psychiatric hospital instead of prison. Would that violate the Constitution, she asked? Schrup pushed back, arguing that someone who is insane historically would not have been subject to prosecution at all. And a conviction, she added, could carry a stigmatizing effect. (Howe, 10/7)
The Washington Post:
Supreme Court’s New Term Opens With Arguments Over Unanimous Juries, Insanity As A Criminal Defense
Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the case raised “quite deep” questions. He wondered about one “crazy” defendant who killed someone because he believed the person was a dog, and another who killed someone he knew was a person but did it because he believed a dog had told him to do it. “Why does Kansas say one is guilty, the other is not guilty?” Breyer asked. Kagan also found the case raised deep questions but said she doubted the outcome will mean much for Kahler. In no state, Kagan told Kahler’s lawyer Sarah Schrup, “would your client be found insane.” (Barnes, 10/7)
Reuters:
U.S. Supreme Court Kicks Off New Term, With Justice Thomas Absent
Justice Clarence Thomas, 71, was absent due to illness. Thomas likely has the flu, a court spokeswoman said. One of the nine-member court’s most conservative members, Thomas has served since 1991 and is its longest-serving justice. In remarks from the bench before the first argument, Chief Justice John Roberts said Thomas was “indisposed” due to illness but would still participate in deciding the three cases. (Hurley and Chung, 10/7)
