NCJ Number
101643
Journal
American Journal of Criminal Law Volume: 13 Issue: 1 Dated: (Fal 1985) Pages: 1-36
Date Published
1985
Length
36 pages
Annotation
This article examines the efforts of California, New York, Michigan, and Kansas to define kidnapping, as well as the definition advanced in the Model Penal Code.
Abstract
California law requires minimal movement of the victim in simple or aggravated kidnapping, although State courts have sought to avoid defining kidnapping as compulsory victim movement incidental to the commission of other crimes against the victim. New York law limits first-degree kidnapping to that committed for ransom and its equivalent; second-degree kidnapping involves the abduction of a person. What constitutes sufficient movement for second-degree kidnapping to exist in conjunction with another crime remains a question. In Michigan, the State supreme court has formulated factors to measure movement incidental to kidnapping. Kansas focuses on whether the movement substantially facilitates another crime. The Model Penal Code focuses on whether victims are kept in substantial isolation from their normal environments. All of the aforementioned definitions are confusing in their concept of the movement required for kidnapping. Kidnapping should be viewed as harm measured by the durations and condition of the victim's confinement. Slight durations of confinement should be considered kidnapping only when accompanied by ransom demands. 188 footnotes.