Stalking

The Problem of Definition

Interpreting the definitions and behaviors of stalking is problematic. For one, how many acts does it take to determine that certain behaviors create a “pattern” or “course” of conduct? Further, the terms credible and threat are complicated. For example, how serious does one have to be to be considered credible or reasonable? Presumably standards for reasonable fear could be different for males and for females; if so, which standard should we use, or should they be different? Further, must threats be verbal? Could threats be written? Do they have to be clear and direct, or can they be implied?

Similarly, typical or usual (and completely understandable) victims' responses often jeopardize their cases as well as their positions and significance as “victims” in the eyes of the criminal justice system. To illustrate, many victims engage in what are called “acquiescent strategies”; that is, assenting to their stalkers to some small extent so that “he would stay cool.” Law enforcement personnel may see the victim as being unsure of what she wants or leading the stalker on. Another example is that many stalkers engage in “courtship”-like behaviors (e.g., leaving a rose on the windshield of the victim's car, professing love, begging the victim to return). While the victim is aware of the true meaning and threatening nature of these “romantic” displays, others, such as criminal justice personnel, may see these seemingly insignificant behaviors as no cause for worrying or being concerned. Such issues regarding the definition of stalking may negatively impact victims' experiences with the criminal justice system as well as the ability of criminal justice personnel to adequately protect the victim. As such, many victims of stalking do not report their harassment to the police or do so only minimally.

...