Definition
Kidnapping is the unlawful seizure and carrying away of a person by force, fraud, or intimidation, without that person's consent. At common law, the offense required that the victim be taken from their own country and sent into another — a definition drawn from Blackstone's Commentaries (4 Bl. Comm. 219) that reflected the crime's origins in the transportation of persons against their will, often into servitude abroad.
In modern American law, the cross-border transportation element has been substantially abandoned. Kidnapping is now defined principally by (1) the unlawful taking or detention of a person, (2) by force, threat, or deception, (3) without lawful authority. Many modern statutes require asportation — movement of the victim — though the required distance varies considerably by jurisdiction. Aggravating factors that elevate the offense include holding the victim for ransom, committing the act in furtherance of another crime, harming the victim, or taking a child.
The crime operates on a spectrum: at minimum it overlaps with false imprisonment and unlawful restraint; at maximum it is a serious felony subject to lengthy imprisonment or, in federal law, potential capital punishment where a kidnapping results in death.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The crime of taking a person against their will, sometimes for ransom.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): To take (any one) by force or fraud and against one's will, with intent to carry to another place.
The common-language definitions are reasonably accurate but incomplete in ways that matter legally. Neither captures that ransom is an aggravating circumstance rather than a defining element — most kidnappings in the legal sense do not involve ransom demands. More significantly, neither conveys the historical common law requirement of cross-border removal, nor the modern doctrinal relationship between kidnapping and lesser offenses like false imprisonment and unlawful restraint.
Common Confusion
KIDNAPPING, ABDUCTION, AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT
These three terms are frequently conflated, and historical sources treat them as overlapping rather than distinct. Bouvier notes explicitly that "there is no wide difference in meaning between kidnapping, false imprisonment, and abduction." The working distinctions in modern law: false imprisonment is unlawful confinement without movement; abduction carries connotations of taking by persuasion or enticement and is used especially in the context of children and women; kidnapping is the aggravated form involving forcible or fraudulent removal and typically some degree of asportation. In practice, statutes vary widely in how they draw these lines, and some jurisdictions use the terms interchangeably. Researchers should not assume consistent usage across historical or jurisdictional sources.
Core Elements
At common law (historical):
1. Forcible abduction or fraudulent enticement
2. Of a person (man, woman, or child)
3. From their own country
4. Sent into another country
Under modern American law (general framework):
1. Unlawful seizure, confinement, or carrying away of a person
2. By force, threat of force, fraud, or deception
3. Without the victim's consent or lawful justification
4. Often: asportation (movement of the victim, distance requirements vary)
5. Aggravated forms add: ransom demand, use of a weapon, harm to victim, victim is a minor, commission in furtherance of another felony
Why It Matters in Research
The most important navigational fact for researchers using historical sources is the cross-border requirement. Black's (both editions), Rapalje & Lawrence, Bouvier, and Burrill all define kidnapping with reference to removal from one country to another — following Blackstone directly. Black's (1st Ed.) explicitly flags that in American law this element "does not seem to constitute a necessary part of the offense," signaling a divergence already underway by the time these dictionaries were compiled. A researcher reading historical cases or statutes must determine whether the source applies the common law definition (cross-border removal required) or the emerging American definition (asportation of any kind sufficient, or confinement alone).
The relationship between kidnapping and false imprisonment is another research trap. Historical sources treat kidnapping as an aggravated form of false imprisonment — not a wholly separate offense. Bouvier's framing is representative: kidnapping is false imprisonment aggravated by the carrying away. Modern statutes often codify these as separate offenses with distinct elements, so backward-projecting modern categories onto historical materials will produce errors.
Child kidnapping and parental kidnapping require separate attention. In historical sources, kidnapping of children was treated as the paradigm case — Black's notes the term was "seldom, if at all, applied to the abduction of other persons than children" in American practice. Modern family law has developed a distinct doctrine around parental kidnapping and custodial interference, which is governed by separate statutes (including federal law) and intersects with custody enforcement in ways that general criminal law doctrine does not address. Researchers working in family law contexts should consult the family law encyclopedia entry separately.
The federal dimension of kidnapping law — particularly after the Lindbergh Act (Federal Kidnapping Act) — substantially expanded federal jurisdiction and influenced state law. Historical dictionary definitions predate this development entirely and should not be read as reflecting the modern federal framework.
Historical Dictionary Support
The five shelf sources converge tightly on the Blackstonian definition, most reproducing it verbatim or nearly so: the "forcible abduction or stealing away of a man, woman, or child from their own country, and sending them into another," citing 4 Bl. Comm. 219. This near-uniform reproduction reflects how thoroughly the common law definition was treated as settled.
The sources diverge at the margins. Burrill adds the most texture, noting that kidnapping can be accomplished not only by force but by "fraudulent inveigling or decoying away" — citing Wharton's American Criminal Law — and offering the compact alternative formulation: "the stealing and carrying away, or secreting a person." This broader framing anticipates the modern definition more closely than the strict Blackstonian cross-border version.
Bouvier provides the most useful doctrinal commentary, observing that kidnapping, false imprisonment, and abduction lack wide differences in meaning, and characterizing kidnapping as false imprisonment aggravated by removal. This framing helps researchers understand why historical cases may charge the offenses interchangeably.
Both editions of Black's acknowledge the American departure from the cross-border element, with the first edition's note that the intent to send out of the country "does not seem to constitute a necessary part of the offense" in American practice. This is the only significant point of editorial departure from straight Blackstone reproduction across the historical shelf.
Jurisdictional Note
Kidnapping definitions, grading, and asportation requirements vary substantially across American jurisdictions. Some states require significant movement of the victim; others treat any movement as sufficient asportation; a minority treat confinement alone as sufficient if combined with other aggravating factors. Federal kidnapping law imposes its own framework, including special provisions where victims are transported across state lines or where death results. Researchers should not generalize any single state's statutory definition to others.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Kidnapping and Unlawful Restraint (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)
Child Custody — Interference with Custody and Parental Kidnapping (The Law Mind Family Law Encyclopedia)