OJ was just sentenced for, among other things kidnapping. It seems to me that what he actually did was commit false imprisonment. Why one and not the other?
OK, my wife brought this up last night: She had an old boyfriend that would prevent her from leaving when they were having an argument. So, she could have called 911 and reported that she was kidnapped!?
Interesting question - I hope that a legal expert chimes in here.
With a cursory search on wikipedia, it seems that the common law definition of kidnapping includes ‘taking and carrying’ the victim.
So, is unlawfully imprisoning someone in a place that they came to of their own free will, (like holding them hostage in their own house) a criminal offsense, and if so, what would the charge be?
Well, it’s not like the 911 operator would say “false imprisonment is a civil matter, please call back when you’ve looked up the appropriate criminal statute.” If someone calls the cops and says they are being held against their will, regardless of terminology, they will send somebody out.
The secondary question seems to be “is it kidnapping if you don’t actually move the person?” In common law, taking the person away is a necessary element of the crime.
But states can override common law definitions by enacting statutes which define crimes in more explicit terms. Here is part of Nevada’s kidnapping statute:
So in Nevada, taking the person away is not necessarily a require element of the crime, and in particular is not a required element if robbery was involved, as was the case in OJ’s crime.
People who take people hostage during the robbery are charged with kidnapping. Had the 9/11 hijackers survived, I’m sure kidnapping would have been added to the long list of charges.
Nevada recognizes both false imprisonment and kidnapping as crimes. Kidnapping is a felony; false imprisonment is a misdemeanor under most circumstances. False imprisonment is probably a lesser included offense. Both require deprivation of liberty (not necessarily taking away–asportation or detention is sufficient) but kidnapping requires the detention be for “ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or robbery upon or from the person, or for the purpose of killing the person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon him, or to exact from relatives, friends, or any other person any money or valuable thing for the return or disposition of the kidnapped person.”
Why charge Simpson with kidnapping instead of false imprisonment? False imprisonment committed without a weapon is a misdemeanor, while kidnapping is a felony. So my guess is that the state went for the more serious charge, particularly because as I understand it, Simpson himself didn’t have a weapon but instead relied on his compatriots to come armed. I don’t know if you can flip a false imprisonment charge to a felony for carrying a gun if the defendant didn’t himself have a gun but instead ordered his friends to come armed. But charging kidnapping avoids having to address that issue, and given the strong overlap between the elements, it’s a good choice.
(Interesting side note: turns out dueling is still illegal in Nevada, and it’s also a misdemeanor to mock someone who refuses to duel. Who knew?)
