Daniel M’Naghten was an Englishman that suffered from paranoid delusions who thought that the Tories were going to kill him. He murdered the Prime Minister’s Secretary, Mr. Drummond and was acquitted under an insanity defense later codified in the House of Lords in 1843. This insanity defense became common law and is known as the M’Naghten Rule — a 2 prong test with the 1st prong determining whether or not the defendant knew what they were doing and the 2nd prong determining if the defendant knew what they were doing was morally ‘wrong.’
- Kansas adopted the M’Naghten Rule in 1884.
- There was an assassination attempt on President Reagan in 1981.
- John Hinckley Jr. was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1982.
- Kansas lawmakers abolished the M’Naghten Rule in 1996.
From Marc Rosen, “First, abolition of the insanity defense in Kansas was unwarranted. The Kansas Legislature abolished the defense because the public wanted it abolished. Yet the public was, and still is, remarkably uninformed about the actual use of the insanity defense. The public’s call for abolition was based on several misperceptions that were either empirically untrue or unjustified. Instead of educating the public on the actual use of the insanity defense, the Kansas Legislature catered to the public’s misperceptions by abolishing the defense.”
We took a narrow mens rea approach for the ‘guilty mind.’
KSA § 21-5209. It shall be a defense to a prosecution under any statute that the defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacked the culpable mental state required as an element of the crime charged. Mental disease or defect is not otherwise a defense.
KSA § 21-5202. Except as otherwise provided, a culpable mental state is an essential element of every crime defined by this code. A culpable mental state may be established by proof that the conduct of the accused person was committed “intentionally,” “knowingly” or “recklessly.”
“There is a major limitation on the defendant’s ability to introduce evidence corroborating or showing the existence of a mental disease or defect. Such evidence is only admissible as it specifically relates to the requisite mens rea of the offense. Therefore, the defense cannot introduce evidence as to the existence of a mental disease or defect to litigate the defendant’s mental condition in general.”
A 2020 Harvard Review also notes “This narrow mens rea approach forbids enshrined ‘moral capacity’ argument for vulnerable minorities. In Kansas, a mentally ill defendant who lacks ‘cognitive capacity’ (who, for example, thinks the person she is killing is a hat) can argue that she lacked mens rea, but a defendant who lacks “moral capacity” (who, for example, believes she is justifiably drowning her children to save them from eternal hell) has no ‘insanity defense.’”
“Oh, but sentencing can be altered with mental health evidence,” one might say.
Mental health evidence can typically be considered at sentencing but does not require a sentence be modified in a particular way. For sentencing guideline felony convictions it can be the basis for a downward durational or dispositional departure. Reducing the prison term or granting probation. For office grid murders it can be used for a departure from a 50 years to life prison sentence to a 25 years to life sentence. For capital murder charges it can be presented as a mitigating circumstance for a life without parole sentence as opposed to a death sentence.
There is little opportunity for treatment.
Restore the M’Naghten Rule:
- Broadens our insanity defense.
- FY 2023 KDOC Report – 46% of adult inmates have mental illness.
- We’re building a psych hospital in Wichita to add secure beds.
- Public perceptions of individuals with mental illness are evolving.
We’re Stepping Up Together!
Over the last 9 years 20 Kansas counties took up the Stepping Up initiative!
For my peers with mental illness going through criminal proceedings, please restore the M’Naghten Rule in Kansas.