A person who, outside of California, kidnaps or forcibly abducts or deceives a person who violates the law of the place where the act is committed and brings that person within the limits of California is guilty of kidnapping under California law. Although federal law would also apply, since the crime would have taken place beyond state borders. Some States add an additional requirement that the abductor must have had an unlawful motive for the crime, such as extortion or ransom, to facilitate a crime or to avoid a persistent legal problem, such as in the case of a custody dispute. In many states, parental abduction is an issue of particular legal importance, as parents may attempt to move their child to another state without the permission of all parties involved in ongoing divorce proceedings or custody matters. To mitigate this problem and avoid conflicting custody laws, most states have now enacted laws adopting the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and the Prevention of Parental Abduction Act (PKPA), which provide guidance for determining which states have jurisdiction over custody disputes and when one state`s custody decisions must be respected by others. The abduction laws of the United States were derived from the common law principles of abduction, which were originally developed by the common law in England. The original common law defined the offence of abduction as the forcible abduction or theft of a man, woman or child from one`s own country and his assignment to another country. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, States began to redefine kidnapping, particularly the need for inter-State transport. Gradually, the involuntary detention of the victim became a key element of the abduction. The various laws on state abduction are aimed at guaranteeing the personal freedom of citizens and enforcing the necessary support of the law to free them from unlawful restrictions. The federal kidnapping law, also known as the Lindbergh Act, prohibits interstate kidnappings. There are federal kidnapping laws that prohibit kidnapping in U.S.
territories, kidnapping on the high seas and in the air, and kidnapping by government officials. Lawmakers have passed laws and courts have issued rules to prevent and detect double punishment in kidnapping cases. In general, these laws and rules stipulate that for kidnapping to be charged as a separate crime, a factor must distinguish asportation from an accompanying crime. Most courts will uphold multiple convictions if the disability exposes the victim to an increased risk of harm or results in harm distinct from the harm caused by the accompanying crime. In other jurisdictions, the test is whether the asportation involves a change in the environment or is used to conceal a related offence. A person accused of kidnapping has the right to present evidence showing that he or she believed he was acting under the authority of the law, in a jurisdiction that allows for the defence of errors. If a person without lawful authorization physically transports or moves another person without his consent, with the intention of using the abduction for other nefarious purposes, then the crime of kidnapping has been committed. Under the Model Penal Code, a set of model criminal rules drafted by the American Law Institute, kidnapping occurs when a person is unlawfully and non-consensually detained and detained for the following purposes: (a) to obtain a ransom or reward or as a shield or hostage; (b) to facilitate the commission of a theft or crime thereafter; (c) injure or terrorize the victim or another person; or (d) interfere with the exercise of any governmental or political function. Under the Federal Abduction Act, the consent of the victim is a valid defence against abduction. However, in order to successfully prove an offence of kidnapping, the mere fact that the victim initially consented to an act does not necessarily preclude the conclusion that the element of „lack of consent“ to other acts constituting the crime of kidnapping exists.
In contrast, in Staat v. Wagner, 191 Wis. 2d 322, 528 N.W.2d 85 (Ct. App. 1995), the Court of Appeal upheld a separate conviction for kidnapping. In the Wagner case, the accused approached two women twice in a laundromat. Both times, the accused tried to force the women into a bathroom to rape them. He was convicted of two counts of attempted first-degree sexual assault, one count of kidnapping and one count of attempted armed abduction. On appeal, he argued that he should not have been convicted of kidnapping because, under section 940.31(1)(a) of Wisconsin law, kidnapping was partially defined as transporting a person „from one place to another“ and he did not take his victims to another place. The court disagreed and ruled that forcible transfer from one room to another fell within the scope of the Abduction Act.
In the end, the Court of Appeal upheld the defendant`s sentence to 72 years in prison. Apart from the real criminals, most of the alleged acts occur in moments of anger or involve child custody. But the consequences, whatever these motivations, can be catastrophic and must be taken very seriously. A customer who did not return his child to the mother by the deadline and instead decided at the last minute to show the child at Disneyworld suddenly faced federal charges that astonished him, and it took us months to convince the various prosecutors that no serious charges should be laid. This is real and needs to be taken seriously. Child abduction has presented legislators with a particularly emotional issue. In response to the abduction and murder of his child Adam, John Walsh founded the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) in 1984. NCMEC serves as a resource to help parents, children, law enforcement, schools and the community locate missing children and raise public awareness of ways to prevent child abductions. Kidnapping for ransom is the first thought that comes to mind when thinking of kidnapping and kidnapping, but in reality, many kidnapping allegations relate to custody disputes where one parent removes a child from the custody of the other parent and/or court jurisdiction. Sometimes abductions can also be carried out without any real conscious criminal intent, with the accused claiming that perceived consent was involved at all times and that the kidnapping charges were not fabricated until long after the event. Thus, the crime of kidnapping and the civil action for compensation that results from it occur in many more circumstances than the usual ransom demand.
A person convicted of kidnapping is usually sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a number of years. In some states and at the federal level, imprisonment may be the rest of the offender`s natural life. In jurisdictions that allow the death penalty, a kidnapper is charged with a capital crime if the abduction results in death. Abduction is punished so harshly because it is a dreaded offence. It usually occurs in connection with another or underlying crime. This is an enforced deprivation of liberty and requires particular criminal audacity. In addition, the transfer of a victim of crime exposes the victim to risks other than those inherent in the predicate offence. Joseph breaks into Abby`s house and sees Abby sitting on the couch. A panoramic window in front of the sofa puts Abby in view of the street and sidewalk. To avoid detection, Joseph grabs Abby on the living room couch and drags her into the bedroom to rape her. Joseph probably did not commit the criminal element required for a kidnapping, if the kidnapping law in the State of Joseph requires a sportion. Joseph forcibly tied Abby up as he grabbed her.
However, her move of Abby from the couch to the bedroom appears to be secondary to the crime of rape, which in most jurisdictions is not enough to justify a kidnapping. For purposes of State law, the constituent elements of abduction generally depend on the wording of the applicable State law. In general, however, the offence of kidnapping is capture and intent to abduct. Elements of coercion or deception are also generally essential to the crime of kidnapping. In addition, abduction usually involves the seizure, imprisonment or detention of another person, and such behaviour is essential for criminal abduction or abduction. In the case of abductions, seizure and detention must be involuntary, and the consent of the victim is a defence against abduction. United States v. Seller, 62 Fed.
Appx. 499, 502 (4th cir. S.C. 2003). If the defendant was a relative of the victim and his sole purpose was to take custody of the victim, this in itself constitutes a valid defence to the charge of kidnapping. United States v. Landham, 251 F.3d 1072, 1081 (6th Cir. Ky. 2001).
Many states have enacted special laws for carjacking, a special form of kidnapping. Generally, hijacking occurs when a person forces a driver out of the driver`s seat and steals the vehicle. Hijacking is a crime, whether the abuser keeps the victim in the car or forces them out of the car. In California, a carjacking law is included in the kidnapping chapter of the Penal Code and provides for a life sentence without parole. (Cal. Strafgesetzbuch § 209.5 [West]). From its beginnings in Texas, the AMBER Alert system spread until 55 versions were deployed locally, regionally and statewide in 2002.
Komentari su zatvoreni.