The Scope of the Problem
Stalking is usually measured by researchers by inter- viewing or surveying members of the general public. Respondents are categorized as stalking victims if they disclose that they were contact many times by the same person in the same way, or if they experienced a number of different kinds of unwanted contacts by the same person, and then became very fearful that they, or someone close to them, subsequently would be harmed or killed (Breiding et al., 2014).
Using this methodology, over 5 million women disclosed that they were stalked in 2011, which cor- responded to an incidence rate of 42 per 1,000. For males, the rate was half as serious, at about 21 per 1,000. Taken together, nearly 7.5 million people were stalked during 2011. This study projected a lifetime prevalence rate of about 15 percent for women and nearly 6 percent for men, based on a national telephone survey (Breiding et al., 2014).
But these findings were much higher than the estimates derived from the first national phone sur- vey carried out about 15 years earlier. This study concluded that 1.4 million people (about 1 million of whom were females) considered themselves to be victims of stalking in one year in the mid- 1990s. The estimated prevalence rate of being stalked at some point in their lives for women was about 8 percent and about 2 percent for men (Tjaden and Thoennes, 1998).
A special survey by the NCVS yielded findings that were in the middle of this range. About 3.3 million people age 18 or older identified themselves as having experienced stalking (which was broadly defined) during 2006. That translated into an inci- dence rate of 15 per 1,000. Almost half received an unwanted contact once a week, and about one- tenth endured five years or more of unwelcomed intrusions into their lives. Most of the unwanted contacts that made the recipients fearful were phone calls and messages, but about a third of the sample said that the wrongdoer followed or spied on them. About 7 out of 10 respondents knew their stalker in some capacity. About one in eight who had jobs missed work as a result of the trouble they experienced. About one in seven moved to escape their tormentors. As for differential risks, separated and divorced persons experienced the highest rates, at 33 per 1,000, as did low-income people. In terms of age, risks were highest for 18- to 24-year-olds, and then dropped off among older groups. Women were at greater risk than men, but both sexes reported their problems to the police at roughly equal rates (about 40 percent) (Baum et al., 2009; and Catalano, 2012a).
A study of college women yielded a much higher victimization rate because it used an even broader def- inition of stalking. Its screening question was posed as follows: “Since the school year began, has anyone from a stranger to an ex-boyfriend repeatedly fol- lowed you; watched you; or phoned, written, or e- mailed you in ways that seemed obsessive and made you afraid or concerned about your safety?” About 13 percent of the college women in the sample answered “Yes.” However, the percentage answering “Yes” dropped to only about 2 percent when the question
378 CH APT ER 11
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
was rephrased to ask whether the person who was the source of the unwanted attention actually threatened harm, which is the definition used in many state sta- tutes. Almost one-third of college women disclosed that they suffered emotionally because of a campus stalking incident (Fisher, Cullen, and Turner, 2000).
Although most stalkers do not become physi- cally abusive, their unnerved targets worry that the unwanted intrusions might escalate into a beating, a kidnapping, a sexual assault, or even a murder. An FBI study discovered that 30 percent of slain women had been stalked by their former boyfriends or husbands before the former intimates murdered them (Office of Justice Programs, 1998). An inquiry that focused solely on females killed by their inti- mate partners revealed that most (76 percent) had been stalked by these murderous men before the fatal encounter (McFarlane et al., 1999). In general, intimate partners or former intimates issue more serious warnings, are more persistent, are more likely to escalate the frequency and intensity of their ominous contacts, and are more likely to follow through on those threats, often by using weapons, against their former lovers, their property, or even third parties close to them. Former intimate partners are also more likely to know their targets greatest fears and vulnerabilities and to reoffend, even after a court issues an order of protection (see Logan, 2010). Targets of nonsexual obsessions are more likely to be harassed by mentally ill but less dangerous offenders (Farnham, James, and Cantrell, 2000).
The most common tactics stalkers use against their victims include unwanted phone calls and messages but also physical surveillance (shadowing around, showing up at places of work, etc.) and property invasion (trespassing). Proxy stalking, carried out in behalf of the perpetrator, takes place when the target is closely watched by a family member, friend, new intimate partner, or even a private investigator hired to maintain surveillance.
Turning to the Criminal Justice System for Relief Spurred on by victims’ rights groups, by 1994 all 50 states had criminalized the practice of willfully, purposefully, maliciously, and repeatedly
pursuing and harassing someone. Congress passed a comparable Interstate Stalking Act in 1996, making it a felony to travel across state lines with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate someone who, as a result of these actions, reasonably fears death or serious bodily injury. Antistalking laws fill a void in the patchwork of statutes forbidding menacing, trespassing, and threatening behavior and allow the authorities to take action before the object of the unwanted attention is seriously hurt.
To permit the police to arrest a stalker before an attack is actually carried out, many state laws focus on the victim’s state of mind as well as the offender’s intentions. These laws take context into account and require that the targeted individual has a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily injury that arises from a credible threat of violence made by the aggressor. In some jurisdictions, stalking is a misde- meanor, while in others it is a felony. Most states have laws that distinguish misdemeanor from felony stalking depending on how ominous the threat is. First offenses usually are prosecuted as misdemea- nors. Stiffer punishments for felonies can be imposed if the offender actually causes bodily harm or confines or restrains the person being pur- sued, or if there are aggravating factors (such as brandishing a weapon, harassing someone under 16 years of age, disregarding an order of protection, or violating the restrictive conditions of probation or parole) (Beck et al., 1992; Hunzeker, 1992; Kolarik, 1992; Wright et al., 1996; and Stalking Resource Center, 2009).
Of the incidents that are reported to the police, less than a quarter lead to prosecution. Only about half of the prosecutions result in convictions, usu- ally not for stalking per se, but for other minor crimes such as disorderly conduct, harassment, menacing, intimidation, trespassing, vandalism, sim- ple assault (and in the more serious instances, break- ing and entering or robbery). Many stalkers violated orders of protection that their intended prey had obtained in court (Tjaden and Thoennes, 1998; Dunn, 2002; and Jordan et al., 2003).
Individuals who just want to be left alone will have a tough time convincing the authorities to take action if the police officers are not adequately
AD D IT ION AL GROUP S OF V I C T IMS WIT H SPE C IAL P ROB L EMS 379
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
trained to recognize the various forms that the out- lawed behavior might take. Furthermore, targets often find it unreasonably difficult to document that they are being subjected to meaningful threats. The burden of proof is so high that very few stalk- ers are found guilty, and most of these misdemea- nants are jailed for just a few weeks. For these reasons, victim advocates proposed an updated model stalking code for state legislatures to con- sider, which closed loopholes in existing laws. It would make the following additional behaviors punishable: engaging in obsessive and controlling actions; targeting third parties (family members, children, friends) in order to instill fear; harassing a person when exercising visitation or custody rights; misusing the court system to file motions and suits (“litigation abuse”); applying sophisticated surveillance technology to monitor movements; impersonating a target to ruin credit or interfere with employment; and posting and disseminating inaccurate and embarrassing information or humili- ating photographs (NCVC, 2007).
Whereas some people consider existing laws to be so limited as to be ineffective, civil libertarians consider the wording to be so vague and overly broad as to be unconstitutional. Some improper conduct that could be misconstrued as constituting stalking should not be outlawed, they say. Alleged stalkers may believe that their repeated activities are allowed under First Amendment free speech pro- tections. These persistent people don’t realize that they could find themselves as defendants in criminal and civil courts. Also, some hastily crafted statutes may grant too much discretion to law enforcement agencies, opening the door to arbitrary enforce- ment (see Endo, 1999; and Reno, 1999).
Reducing Risks Not surprisingly, stalking victims sometimes find themselves being faulted for enabling their predicament to develop. Victims can be blamed for facilitating (through carelessness), precipitating (through rash conduct), or even pro- voking (through intentional incitements) a stalker’s preoccupation with initiating or reviving a relation- ship. Victims’ fears sometimes are belittled. Female targets in particular are told that they are imagining
that harmless messages foreshadow impending doom, or that they should be flattered by the atten- tion, or that they are somehow encouraging the unwanted contacts through bad judgment. Victim blaming insists that the behavior of the targets is at the root of the problem and that they should exam- ine their own responses and then change how they react (see Meloy, 1998).
To head off serious trouble, the following suggestions have been offered: Tell the offender to desist just once and then break off contact; keep a log or journal documenting acts of harass- ment and intimidation; formulate plans that will enhance safety at home, when traveling, and while at work; and fully exercise the options for protection and prosecution offered by the criminal and civil justice systems (Spence-Diehl, 1999; and Day One, 2011). Research by victimologists is needed to determine whether this advice is sound and genuinely effective.
Stalking victims can take many self-protective measures. In addition to reporting the crime and preserving corroborating evidence, they can go to court for a restraining order, sign up for an unlisted phone number (and a trap to tape incoming calls), change locks, vary their daily routines, practice self- defense techniques, seek the company of trustwor- thy protectors, and pack an emergency suitcase for a temporary escape to a more secure place. In extreme cases, terrorized people can move away to an undisclosed location and even change their identities to enhance their safety and the well- being of their families.
Unfortunately, stalkers are discovering new high-tech ways to track the movements of their victims, such as by secretly placing a tracking device on a target’s car or by surreptitiously installing spy- ware to reveal e-mails written and websites visited by the people they are hounding (“When technol- ogy gets diabolical…,” 2005). GPS technology linked to smartphones also can be used to facilitate stalking. Tracking programs have assisted motorists who are hopelessly lost, or helped parents keep tabs on their children, and even enabled detectives to locate kidnap victims or arrest suspects on their most wanted lists. But those same services offered
380 CH APT ER 11
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
by cellular carriers also empower stalkers to monitor the whereabouts of their targets, often within a tight radius of less than 100 feet. To thwart this high-tech threat, some shelters that house battered women insist that their cell phones—which the victims assumed were a source of protection—be decommissioned while they take refuge at these secret locations (Scheck, 2010). About 10 percent of survey respondents in 2006 who said they were stalked reported being tracked by a GPS device, and 8 percent said they had been monitored through listening devices or with video or digital cameras (Baum et al., 2009).
Like spouse abuse and forcible rape, stalking seems to be an offense that is usually motivated by desires for domination and subjugation. Most fre- quently, the terrorized party is a woman who is being followed by a jealous, possessive, violence- prone ex-boyfriend or ex-husband who refuses to accept her decision that their romantic relationship is over. However, many variations on the themes of “fatal attraction,” “murderous obsession,” or “ero- tomania delusions” are possible: A young man’s new girlfriend can be trailed and threatened by his old girlfriend, a therapist can be besieged by a for- mer patient who feels abandoned and betrayed after an affair, or a boss might be chased after by a dis- gruntled worker who was subjected to intense sex- ual harassment, then sexually exploited, and fired afterward. Most stalkers, according to clinical stud- ies, are primarily motivated by vengeance and hatred of the victim, as opposed to genuine affec- tion or romantic inclinations. They desire to exert power or to regain control over their targets, whom they blame for the falling out (Meloy, 1998).