The courts and administrative structures are founded on the law

The courts and administrative structures are founded on the law

The courts and administrative structures are founded on the law that has been in existence for centuries. The rule holds that criminal liability is significantly dependent on a person’s capacity for moral judgment, which is not very distant from what is considered legal. A person’s moral capacity is used to determine an individual’s culpability to comprehend and choose between right and wrong. It is for this reason that the insane cannot be charged for the lack of moral judgment because they lack understanding. This law has been held in over forty jurisdictions, but Kansas does not consider moral capacity when making decisions in its criminal code (Garrett, American Justice 2014). Instead, the state applies a more modern interpretation of morality knows as the men rea, which is a strategy used to eliminate the means previously used to assess whether a defendant possessed the mental intention to commit a crime. The argument we intend to make using different mechanisms is to show that Mr. Kahler’s judgment was not intact and was irrevocably compromised by mental illness. Depending on the due process a lot, even though Kansas was to rethink the insanity defense, it is almost natural that it would look at different models. This argument goes a long way to explain my opinion that Kansas state made the right call bypassing the law of insanity. The opinion provides an option of having a ruling of guilty but insane because, at the end of the day, the courts have a legal right to maintain order in their jurisdiction, and to do so, it is essential to hold every person accountable for their actions.

The appeal refers to the penal code that typifies the evolvement of criminal statutes that moved significantly closer to more distinct mentally subjective states. However, this law much depends on Mr Kahler’s ability to convince the court of his insanity. Arguably, the assumption of sanity and the availability of evidence overpower the men’s rea law because it continuously represents the need for the establishment of a system that would be used to rebut the presumption despite requisite mental state. However, as we are trying to reach the root of the case, the mechanism is not the only best approach because passing a guilty by the insane verdict is more effective as it addresses the defendant’s actions and his mental culpability. This is because a vicious will is often tied up with the ability of the person to be morally fitted. Therefore, the defendant is deemed to be made aware of what they are charged for and serve their due time. The state would achieve this by allowing the defendant to argue that his lack of mental culpability only affects his specificity in intentions that lead to a crime but does not exonerate him from facing the consequences of his actions. In my opinion, this should apply to cases such as in the case where a defendant commits his crimes while mentally inculpable and where a defendant creates a justification for their crimes, yet they understand that what they did was wrong.

It is for these reasons that I argue that the most appropriate scheme is passing a double ruling. Since the people who are guilty but are not insane face incarceration in prison, it is only reasonable that action is taken on the insane criminals such as incarceration in mental hospitals. However, this faces opposition from the law as the insane are not held culpable of their actions and have been excused from various state responsibilities. The arguments provide a solution for this by ensuring that the insane are taken to a mental institution where they would serve their time while being properly watched over to ensure that the public is kept safe. The reason the argument approaches the judgment of Mr. Kahler like this is that due to his insanity, he killed four of his family members it would be irresponsible for the court just to let him go scot-free on the plea that he was insane. The possibility of a repeat scene could happen from Mr. Kahler’s inability to manage societal pressure, thus costing the states more lives than if they monitored him in a facility that was tailored to his needs where he would not be a danger to the society.

My opinion is that since Mr. Kahler was found guilty of a crime, it is only reasonable that he faces what the court termed as collateral damage regardless of the facility he serves his time. This is because his action, although out of insanity, is still a crime that significantly impacts the community, and therefore even though the court was to reconsider the plea for insanity, it would not overlook the crime the defendant was charged but instead offer mental care while serving his time. Previously the insane were not held accountable for their actions, but the state of Kansas realizes that there was a need to provide mental treatment without overlooking their acts because though they lack the conviction, the principles of good and evil still hold in a court of law. Committing Mr. Kahler to a mental institution to serve his time would be the most appropriate action to take because it would be a design of the court’s commitment to its state’s security. In my opinion, the plea for insanity shouldn’t disregard the conduct sentencing because this brings the system and the defendant at meet points. This is because the system compromises on the motion for sanity, and the defendant serves time where we hope correction would be instilled.

This goes to mean that there is a strong regard for the current system that holds dear the principle of right and wrong. This bridges the gap between knowledge of wrong and moral wrongdoing. This is because there are cases where an individual knows that something is wrong or illegal yet feels very firmly that it is moral through justifications, such as vivid professions. There are various situations that an unhinged individual could cause an offense. Therefore, if an individual is to be let scot-free because they fail to recognize that what they did was wrong, then criminal law would take a very different proceeding. Therefore, in my opinion, the only argument for the defendant is that it was due to a mental illness that he was given prescriptions for yet did not take the medication. This places Mr Kahler’s defense at the losing end because although he suffered a mental disorder. Another reason for this argument is the fact that the defendant could not distinctively distinguish their guilt because they failed to argue that it holds for all mental dysfunctions. The fact that Mr Kahler was depressed, which is a psychological condition, does not warrant him to get away with the first-degree murder of his grandmother, wife, and two daughters. This wiped an entire three generations of the wife’s lineage, leaving the wife’s family devastated by the death of mothers, daughters, and grandchildren.

The argument that defendants with mental challenges should not be held accountable is quite farfetched because one of every five people in the United States suffers from a mental disorder that has been listed as a mental illness which translates to roughly sixty million people who would face plea insanity to the courts if charged with crimes. This in itself is impractical because this would mean that Mr. Kahler would use the fact that he had a mental disease that caused his mental in-culpability to comprehend what was required of him in a moral framework. This does not mean that we should disregard those who are actually affected by mental illness to a point where they are unable to discern right from wrong because they would be legislatively presented to the jury. This does not mean that mentally ill defendants are not held accountable but rather make it easier to justify a guilty but insane verdict.

Another reason to support my opinion is that the defendant’s argument is that Mr Kahler should not be held accountable for his actions because history supports that mentally challenged criminals should not be sentenced and that the state of Kansas should follow suit. This raises several concerns, especially that of the evolution of criminal liability and the fact that courts are not stuck with the legal approaches or legal strategies of the past. As a result, it is possible to argue that Kansas is not obligated to keep the laws of the past and is open to amend its legislation to suit the legal needs of the state. This makes it possible to argue that the criminal law from which the defendant draws from, which is the 1500s, is notably antiquated. This leads to the need for the provision of sentencing for Mr Kahler’s action with the consideration that he suffered from depression that is a mental illness. Due to the change in times, it is only reasonable that the due processes also have to change because the laws have served their purpose and are due to be changed. The reinstatement of the men’s rea has played a decisive role in ensuring fundamental fairness that serves the state of Kansas rather efficiently. Also, in reference to history, the confinement of perpetrators of insanity crimes was often worse than jail sentences, and therefore the defendant fails to argue that history should preponderate in the ruling requirement.

Therefore it is for the above reasons that I believe that the state of Kansas should revise the insanity act of Mr. Kahler. Still, instead of letting him go scot-free, he should be held culpable and serve his time in a mental institution. It is also a thought that Mr Kahler could seek medicinal attention then serve his jail time. In the current state, the mentally affected are sent to an institution where they receive care and attention before being released to serve their sentences. However, the expansive notion of what is regarded as evidence is the only demur that the rule faces. This is because there is no well-defined representation of what mental ailments warrant an offender to plea insane. This would help hinder the idea that a perpetrator could skirt serving their punishment and that in case of mental derangement, the sentencing would be derelict but insane, which has scant reactions.