Applying the "possession is 9/10ths of the law" rule to children is not only gross and clearly makes property of them - as in slaves (even if their "job" is only to look cute) - it also suggests that the dame would apply for any kidnapper...thus bringing us full circle right back to the start of this post...
Online Legal Dictionary defines kidnapping as:
The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or Fraud, or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to carry that person away at a later time....As for punishment it says:
A person who is convicted of kidnapping is usually sentenced to prison for a certain number of years. In some states, and at the federal level, the term of imprisonment may be the remainder of the offender's natural life. In jurisdictions that authorize the death penalty, a kidnapper is charged with a capital offense if the kidnapping results in death. Kidnapping is so severely punished because it is a dreaded offense. It usually occurs in connection with another criminal offense, or underlying crime.I cannot help but think pedophiles such as Peckenpaugh, Mancusco and now social worker Frank Lombard - all of whim "adopted" children with the sole intent and purpose of using them as sex slaves. Why is this still called adoption and not what it is: kidnapping? Even Joel Steinberg who "adopted" two kids but never filed for their adoption and abused both, killing one...was never charged with kidnapping - or murder - and all throughout the case it was referred to as an "illegal adoption'" instead of a kidnapping.
And now of course we have as many as a thousand children in this country who were "adopted" from Guatemala, any number of whom very well may have been kidnapped with no one investigating. See also: DNA.
In Jackson's case, he allegedly never filed to adopt any of these children either and it now appears none are biologically related to him. Does that not clearly constitute kidnapping, or baby selling? Or did he cleverly get around that loophole - at least re the first two by marrying his surrogate?
In modern usage, kidnapping or abduction of a child is often called child stealing, particularly when done not to collect a ransom but rather with the intention of keeping the child permanently (often in a case where the child's parents are divorced or legally separated, whereupon the parent who does not have legal custody will commit the act, also known as "childnapping").One legal explanation/opinion about surrogacy and adoption appears at: Michael Jackson’s Kids and the “Parent Child Relationship” - An Intro to Legal Issues with Surrogacy, Third Party Reproduction, and Adoption
It all leaves this blogger wondering: Is there a difference between adoption and kidnaping anymore? Where is the line that separates what is considered a noble act of altruism from a felony that is just on step short of premeditated murder?