Kidnapping is a national problem that affects states all over America. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in 2020, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) reported 365,348 kidnappings in America (About NCMC, 2021). However, this number has declined by 56,046 in 2019, where the NCIC reported 421,394 (About NCMC, 2021). Nonetheless, the American government and law enforcement have been attentive, determined, and conscientious to reduce this issue to ensure the capture of the kidnapping perpetrators and overall bring justice in the United States. The importance of the topic is to understand the similarities and differences of the state statutes in America. This research will contain the kidnapping definition, the similarities and differences of both state statutes of Kansas and California, and a kidnapping case from both states.
Difference and Definition
There have been times individuals have interchanged kidnapping and false imprisonment due to the lack of clarification. In order to avoid confusion, this paper will demonstrate the differences between these two terms. According to Lippman (2019), false imprisonment is “the intentional and unlawful confinement or restraint of another person” (p. 1038). To illustrate, a group of thieves breaks into a house but, instead of quickly leaving, they find themselves confined, as the owner purposely traps the thieves for his planned criminal act. That is considered false imprisonment due to the homeowner not forcibly transporting or moving a person from their current location. Therefore, the main element in the kidnapping is the location movement against the victim's will (Lippman, 2019). For example, moving a person from the sidewalk into a house against their will would be considered kidnapping. Furthermore, the actus reus of false imprisonment is a person to stay at a place they did not want to or go somewhere against their will (Lippman, 2019).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
According to the common law, kidnapping is “the forcible abduction or stealing away of a person from his or her country and sending him into another country” (Lippman, 2019, p. 1027). However, kidnapping has many definitions as every state defines kidnapping differently based on its statutes and requirements. For instance, in the Kansas state statute, kidnapping is defined as the: “Taking or confining of any person, accomplished by force, threat, or deception with the intent of hold the person for ransom, a shield or hostage, to facilitate flight or the commission of any crime, to inflict bodily injury or to terrorize the victim or another, or interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function” (Schonrock et al., 2020).
Within the California state statute, kidnapping is defined as the following:
- (a) Every person who forcibly installs fear, steals, takes, detains, or arrests any individual in the state and either takes the victim to another country, state, county, or another location of the same county (Schonrock et al., 2019).
- (b) Every person who hires, persuades, entices, decoys, or seduces by false promises, misrepresentation, or the like, any child under age 14 to leave the country, state, country, or another location in the country (Schonrock et al., 2019).
- (c) Subdivisions (a) to (b), inclusive, a design to take a victim out to the state without establishing a claim, and for the purpose and intent to sell a victim into slavery, involuntary servitude, or otherwise to employ them without free will and consent of that person is guilty of kidnapping (Schonrock et al., 2019).
Essentially, there are various definitions for the term kidnapping throughout the nation.
Similarities
Initially, there are only a couple of similarities between the Kansas and California state statutes. The first similarity is that both states describe kidnapping as stealing, taking, confining, or detaining any person against their will (Schonrock, 2019; Schonrock, 2020). From either a public location, such as restaurants, bars, nightclubs, parks, and beaches, or a private place, like an individual’s home and car, a hotel room, a hospital room, and property. Additionally, the second similarity is that there are some types of force, threats, or uses of deception on any person through the kidnapping process (Schonrock, 2019; Schonrock, 2020).
Furthermore, to commit a crime, one needs both a guilty mind (mens rea) and the guilty act (actus reus) within the following three kidnapping acts. The first act is removing a victim from the home or business to place them in danger (Lippman, 2019). That would include taking a person from their home into a place they would experience harm or death. The second act removes the victims from their current location to a substantial distance to ensure punishment is not imposed for minor changes of place (Lippman, 2019). In other words, kidnappers would move the victims across the town, city, or state instead of a few blocks from the victim’s house or the place the kidnapping took place. The third act is, confining the victim for a substantial period in an isolated location with a specific intent (Lippman, 2019). This can include the use of victims for personal pleasure or profit.
Differences
Continuing with the comparison and contrast, after analyzing the Kansas and California state statutes, four primary principles were discovered. The first difference was found under Kansas law, which states that kidnapping can be defined as a criminal action, which interferes with any governmental or political function (Schonrock et al., 2020). An example of interfering would be how business affairs are run in a county government’s general services department. That would include human services, agriculture, homeland security, and transportation. In addition, interfering also means with the Board of Canvassers during the finalization of an election (Eckman et al., 2020). The Board of Canvassers counts every ballot cast and ensures that every valid vote cast is included in the election total (Eckman et al., 2020). If a person interfered with their work, then it would be like kidnapping the will of the voters. Another example would include kidnapping someone from any governmental or political function to keep them from certifying an election, which can include a candidate running for president.
The second difference found under the California law is that kidnapping is not executed in commission with another felony since it is classified as a ‘simple kidnapping’ (Schonrock et al., 2019). To clarify, commission pertaining to criminal law means committed in combination with other crimes. An example would be a rape committed in the commission of homicide which could qualify as a capital murder case. Furthermore, simple kidnapping is exactly what California state statute subdivision (a) states, such as a kidnapper is only moving someone against their will with no other uses, such as manipulated, threats, or physical harm. An example of this is offering a person a ride then installing fear in them by taking them to a different location than what they expected. Furthermore, (b) would be aggravated kidnapping due to having sex with a minor. Next, aggravated kidnapping is also applied under subdivision (c) based on its involvement in trafficking as stated above, which involves leaving the county, state, country to be sold. The last aggravated kidnapping would be subdivision (d) which requires force or fraud, which each of those is a crime.
The other two differences are the penalties for kidnapping. Under Kansas law, penalties for kidnapping are stricter than they are in California. That is even without the aggravated circumstances, which is harsher than the simple kidnapping. According to the state statute of Kansas, kidnapping is a severity level 3, person felony (Schonrock et al., 2020). That means that based on the sentencing grid of Kansas, a conviction for kidnapping carries a maximum prison term of two hundred and forty-seven months or twenty and a half years (Schonrock et al., 2020). However, aggravated kidnapping is a severity level 1 person felony (Schonrock et al., 2020). Therefore, according to the sentencing grid in Kansas, the maximum prison term is six hundred and fifty-three months, or approximately fifty-four and half years (Schonrock et al., 2020). On the contrary, under California law, the most severe kidnapping charge has a maximum of eight years (Schonrock et al., 2019). However, if the kidnapped victim was younger than fourteen years old and the kidnapper was neither a parent nor a guardian, then the sentencing would increase to eleven years.
Kansas Case
Facts
In the heat of the moment, the defendant (Harris) physically hurt the victim (Lujan) by causing her to hit her head against the wall. Lujan told Harris she would not call the police, but he had to leave. Wanting to escape town, Harris refused and demanded money from her, knowing she saved $900 for rent and living expenses each month. At first, Harris held a body pillow as if he might suffocate her and told her he was not playing. Next, Harris took Lujan to the bedroom and said, “Lord, please forgive me for this murder I’m about to commit” (State of Kansas v. Samuel L. Harris). Lujan was terrified, nude, and had no way of contacting the police due to Harris taking her phone. When she asked for clothes, Harris refused since he was afraid, she would escape. Harris then moved Lujan into the living room, where he threatened to kill both her dog and her if he did not get the money. Harris then took her into the kitchen to try to tie her with an extension cord but failed. Going back to the living room, Harris continued to threaten her by saying he had killed three people before and had no problem killing her and then punched her in the jaw. After being hit, Lujan gave Harris the money. Harris then called his friend for a ride out of town, but before he left, he told Lujan he was to kill her. Lujan then ran to the wall of an adjoining apartment and banged on it while yelling for the neighbor. Harris then ran away and left Lujan’s apartment (State of Kansas v. Samuel L. Harris).
Related to Statute
Considering the facts, one can see how the Kansas state statute of kidnapping is applied to the case. For example, as mentioned above, in Kansas, kidnapping is confining any person by force and with intent (Schonrock et al., 2020). In this case, Harris restrained Lujan by forcing her and threatening her. The intent of this case was the facilitated flight or the commission of any crime. That was demonstrated as Harris took Lujan’s phone and denied her any clothes in case she escaped. Additionally, aggravated kidnapping was also shown as Harris inflicted bodily harm upon Lujan as he punched her in the jaw before she gave him the money. As a result, Harris crimes, was sentenced to prison for 18 years (State of Kansas v. Samuel L. Harris).
California Case
Facts
Defendant (Morgan) was at a club at night when the victim (Wong) and her friend Klein arrived at the club. While walking through the club, Morgan grabbed Wong’s arm and pulled her to him. They then started talking to each other. Later, Wong called out Klein’s name, and she saw Morgan holding both of Wong’s arms while exiting the club (People v. Morgan). However, it appeared that Wong was leaving voluntarily. Immediately Klein left the club to look for Wong, but after searching for her and not finding her, she went home and called the police. At the time, security cameras captured images of Wong and Morgan. First, the pair were walking side by side, but six seconds later, after reappearing in a camera, Morgan continued to walk south, with Wong behind him, who appears to be trying to pull away from Morgan. Although it is not visible, it appears Morgan is holding onto some part of Wong’s body (People v. Morgan). A few minutes later, it showed Morgan dragging Wong with him. Finally, the camera caught Morgan leaving and entering an air condition unit enclosure before leaving the area where Wong was found dead (People v. Morgan).
Related to Statute
Considering the facts, one can view how the state statute of kidnapping in California is applied to this case. With that in mind, one can observe how simple kidnapping was involved within this case. For starters, in subdivision (a), it is reasonable to believe the force began when Morgan grabbed both of Wong’s arms and managed to take her to a different location. Although that might be hard to prove, due to insufficient evidence, and according to Klein, it appeared Wong was leaving voluntarily. However, subdivision (a) could be proved when the defendant forcibly moved Wong toward the enclosure because the second capture picture showed some nonconsensual movement as Morgan had dragged her. Furthermore, one can also believe aggravated kidnapping may have occurred since the defendant engaged in kidnapping to commit another crime, such as rape. However, for this charge, the prosecutor must show that the defendant intended to commit the underlying crime while moving the victim (People v. Morgan). Overall, based on insufficient evidence and other decision made in other cases, the court reversed the kidnapping conviction and the kidnapping-murder special-circumstance finding. As a result, due to other prior crimes, Morgan was sentenced to death.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the importance of this topic was to understand the similarities and differences of the state statutes, to understand how each state handles similar crimes. In this research, both kidnapping and false imprisonment were analyzed due to confusion. As a result, it was determined that the kidnapping definition was different in every state in America. Furthermore, after examining the Kansas and California state statutes, two similarities were found, aside from the mens rea, actus reus, and the three kidnapping acts. Aside from the similarities, there were four differences within the states. The first difference was in Kansas since kidnapping is a criminal action, which interferes with any government or political function. Also, penalties for kidnapping, even without aggravating circumstances, are harsher than they are in California. As for California, kidnapping is not executed in commission with another felony is classified as ‘simple kidnapping’ (Schonrock et al., 2019). Lastly, in California, the most severe kidnapping charges have a maximum sentence of eight years. Finally, a kidnapping case from Kansas and California was analyzed by viewing how the state statutes were applied in each case.
Stuck on your essay?
