論美國法精神障礙抗辯的新發展：以Kahler v. Kansas案為核心

Insanity Defense Developments in the United States: Kahler v. Kansas

美國的精神障礙與心智缺陷抗辯之立法模式，主要有四種樣態，分別為：姆納頓法則、不可抗拒之衝動準則、無能力判斷道德是非、模範刑法典模式。然而，堪薩斯州採取了不同於上述的立法模式，反倒修法將精神障礙抗辯從罪責抗辯事由中移除，刑事被告僅可在主觀要件認定與量刑裁量時主張。美國聯邦最高法院在2020年的Kahler v. Kansas案中，針對刑法中的精神障礙與心智缺陷抗辯規定，是否受到聯邦憲法第14修正案的正當法律程序保障為主要審理爭點，並對精神障礙抗辯的立法模式作出相關的分析討論。

There are four main legislative models governing the insanity de-fense in the United States: the M’Naghten rule, M’Naghten plus voli-tional incapacity, Moral incapacity, and Model Penal Code. Recently, Kansas adopted a novel legislative model under which the insanity de-fense is no longer available as an excuse with respect to guilty, but can only be raised in the determination of subjective elements and sentenc-ing. The U.S. Supreme Court took the Kahler v. Kansas case in 2020, focusing on whether the insanity defense is protected by the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment, and further discussing the nature of dif-ferent legislative models for the insanity defense.