In Kansas legal statutes, it is a felony to kidnap someone and a misdemeanor to commit an act of assault. Kansas law, under Statute 21-3420, defines kidnapping as "the taking or confining of any person, accomplished by force, threat or deception, with the intent to hold such person." It further states that expressly illegal scenarios include ransom/hostage situations, facilitation of a crime, inflicting bodily injury to the victim, or interfering with a government function [1]. Kidnapping is listed as a level 3 felony. Statute 21-3408, describing assault, states that it is unlawful to "intentionally [place] another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm." Assault is listed as a class C misdemeanor [2]. Image by Barangay RP.Although kidnapping is not listed as a common-law crime in the list, it relates to some of the other crimes listed - one of the scenarios mentioned in Kansas statutes under kidnapping refers to battery and assault, and any crime against the person except robbery could be tied to the kidnapping. Assault is listed under the common-law crimes as the "intentional placing of another in fear of receiving an immediate battery [3]," closely relating to the definition in Kansas law. Although the descriptions seem to mean the same thing, Kansas law uses the phrase "reasonable apprehension" while the common-law crime description says "fear." The difference may be negligible, but "fear" seems to have more urgency than "reasonable apprehension" and the former seems to favor the victim more than the latter, which in including "reasonable" leaves more room for an argument to be made.
If you've ever watched the popular police drama Law and Order by Chris Wolf, you've probably seen a defense attorney say something along the lines of, "Not Guilty, by Reason of Insanity" once or twice already. At that point, there's usually unfriendly criticism from the opposing acting counsel trying to stay strong to the image of an adversarial system. But how is the Insanity defense shined upon in real life? It is not the most accurate depiction of law, but it is a fairly large gambit where the state or other injured party can lose greatly. Insanity is an allowed defense and if the defense attorney is successful can get their client off with less than a slap on the wrist. Kansas particularly uses a ruling derived from the 1800s. According to Frontline PBS twenty-five states (including Kansas) adhere to the M'Nagten Rule as do Federal Courts and the District of Columbia. The rule is named after the man Daniel M'Naghten, who attempted to kill Sir Robert Peel, England's Prime Minister in 1843. He failed and he ended up killing the minister's secretary instead. M'Nagten first claimed that it was out of Self-Defense as Sir Peel had been intentionally and vengefully causing harm to himself. His rantings went on and nine witnesses, including medical experts testified in his defense. He was found not guilty due to reasons of insanity [4]. The public and Queen Victoria were outraged by the outcome and demanded the House of Lords review it. Images by ceand.com and UCLA's Political Science Dept.
From that, they established that if a person did not know that his actions or intentions were wrong at the time it occurred, that they could not be held accountable afterwards. The rule is defined better by Larry Siegel's Intro to Criminal Justice 12ED. If a person were to be insane at the time of the act, under duress or defect of reason arising from a disease of the mind and therefore could not tell both the nature and quality of the act was wrong, they could not be held accountable for their actions [3]. In short, if they were unable to tell right from wrong due to mental disease or disorder, they did not have the mens rea or criminal intent for the act.
The M'Naghten rule, although accepted by over half of the US, can be interpreted differently by each state and have differing outcomes. You may research individually here. Kansas sticks to the conservative view. People can be found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. If they are, treatment is mandatory and the court will act as the committed party's guardian.
A report of internet crimes in the state of Kansas in 2007 listed 1,418 total complaints. Auction fraud and non-delivery of merchandise/payment topped the list by far at 34.5% and 25.1%, respectively, with 8 other categories of complaints comprised mostly of frauds completing the list. The report lists exactly 75% of perpetrators as males and 25% as females. Those who reported crimes were nearly evenly split at 53.7% males and 46.3% females. The largest group of complainants was those in the 20-29 age range at 24.8%, with all other groups being close except those under 20 at 3.0% and those over 60 at 7.8%; however, the amount of losses reported rose rather consistently as age rose, ranging from $475.00 at age 20-29 to $1100.24 at 60 and older [5]
[1] Kansas Statutes (2009, April 04). KSA 21-3420: Kidnapping. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from Kansas Statutes Website: http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_21/Article_34/21-3420.html
[2] Kansas Statutes (2009, April 04). KSA 21-3408: Assault. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from Kansas Statutes Website: http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_21/Article_34/21-3408.html
[3] Siegel, Larry J (2008). Introduction to Criminal Justice. Exhibit 4.6 Common-Law Crimes and Various Insanity Defense Standards (pp 150-152). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
[4] Educational Foundation (WGBH, 2000). State Insanity Defense Laws. Frontline PBS. Retrieved September 20, 2009 from Educational Foundation Website http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/states.html
[5] Internet Crime Complaint Center (2008). Kansas's IC3 2007 Internet Crime Report. Retrieved September 22, 2009, from Internet Crime Complaint Center's Website http://www.ic3.gov/media/annualreport/2007/Kansas%202007%20Report.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment