Abstract
Stalking was first criminalised in the United States in the early 1990s and most recently two stalking offences were introduced in the United Kingdom to deal specifically with stalking behaviour, strengthen the prosecution of stalkers and improve the protection of victims. However, despite growing policy and research attention in the last decade, the available knowledge and understanding regarding the nature and impact of stalking and the needs of its victims are rather limited. As such, this article aims to add to current knowledge by exploring the needs and suggestions of stalking victims based on the in-depth accounts of 26 self-defined victims/survivors of stalking who took part in a study examining the impact of stalking and the criminal justice system responses to victims. Overall, the findings of this study indicate that often stalking victims’ voices are not heard, their complaints are dismissed, their emotional turmoil is not recognised, their needs for support and safety are not properly addressed and therefore while they may be statistically present, in essence they remain ‘invisible’.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The inclusion of the studies covered in this article was based on their salience and relevance to the scope of the article and the methodology of the study the findings resulted from.
It is worth noting here that the European countries who have specific anti-stalking legislation refrain from using the word and concept of ‘stalking’ in their legal texts. For example, Article 442 bis of the Belgian Penal Code defines stalking as ‘the disturbance of a person’s peace and quiet’ and uses the word ‘belaging’ (synonymous to ‘harassing’) instead of the term ‘stalking’. Similarly, the Netherlands introduced the much debated concept of privacy by defining stalking as ‘the violation of a person’s privacy’ (De Fazio, 2009, p. 232).
The prosecution of stalkers was undertaken by using the common law crime of breach of the peace and thus there was a lack of provisions dealing with stalking in Scotland (Middlemiss and Sharp, 2009). As such, two anti-stalking offences were introduced: (i) the ‘threatening and abusive behaviour’ offence and (ii) the offence of stalking with the latter providing a list of examples of stalking behaviour (for example, following, contacting, entering or loitering in the vicinity, interfering with property) and stressing that the list is not exhaustive (Middlemiss, 2010). In essence, Scottish law and the new anti-stalking offences in England and Wales share many similarities as they name and criminalise stalking, require a course of conduct and provide an indicative list of behaviours including cyberstalking.
Cyberstalking has been broadly defined as ‘the use of the internet, email, or other electronic communications devices (for example, mobile phones, telephones, computers, recorders and so on) to stalk another person’ (US Attorney General, 1999 cited in Spitzberg and Hoobler, 2002, p. 75).
Four participants explained that, although they recognised that they were stalked, they did not report it to the police mainly because they believed that they would not be taken seriously and also because stalking ended using other informal ways (for example, confronting the stalker, informal warnings) or for other unknown reasons.
Research studies have shown that stalkers often have mental health problems (for example, a small number are diagnosed as psychotic) and many suffer from personality disorders such as borderline personality disorder that may underpin and/or partly explain their criminal behaviour (Farnham et al, 2000; Storey et al, 2009).
Albeit a strong and flexible piece of legislation focusing on the impact of stalking on the victim rather than the perpetrator’s intent, it has been shown that the PHA (1997) did not deal with stalkers and protect their victims effectively (see for a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the Act Harris, 2000; Petch, 2002).
The offence of stalking involving fear of violence (s.4A) requires that a stalker cause another person to fear on at least two occasions that violence will be used against that person or cause that person to suffer serious alarm or distress which has a substantial effect on that person’s usual day-to-day activities (Leigh, 2013, pp. 119–120). The Home Office provides a list of examples of what may count as adverse effects including changes in the victim’s travelling routines, social and job-related activities, moving home and physical or mental health impairment. The importance of this provision rests on the recognition of the life changes, debilitating disruptions and serious emotional harms stalkers can cause to their victims.
References
Baum, K., Catalano, S., Rand, M. and Rose, K. (2009) Stalking Victimisation in the United States. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Brewster, M. (1998) An Exploration of the Experiences and Needs of Former Intimate Stalking Victims. Final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice. West Chester, PA: West Chester University.
Budd, T. and Mattinson, J. (2000) Stalking: Findings from the 1998 British Crime Survey. Research Findings No. 129. Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate.
Burgess, A.W. et al (1997) Stalking behaviors within domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence 12 (4): 389–403.
Church-Taylor, A. (2012) The new stalking act is merely a rehash of current legislation. Solicitors Journal 156 (17): 14.
Cotterrell, R. (1998) Why must legal ideas be interpreted sociologically? Journal of Law and Society 25 (2): 171–192.
Cox, L. and Speziale, B. (2009) Survivors of stalking: Their voices and lived experiences. Journal of Women and Social Work 24 (1): 5–18.
Davis, K.E., Coker, A.L. and Sanderson, M. (2002) Physical and mental health effects of being stalked for men and women. Violence and Victims 17 (4): 429–443.
De Fazio, L. (2009) The legal situation on stalking among the European member states. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 15 (3): 229–242.
De Fazio, L. (2011) Criminalization of stalking in Italy: One of the last among the current European Member States’ anti-stalking laws. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 29 (2): 317–323.
Dressing, H., Kuehner, C. and Gass, P. (2005) Lifetime prevalence and impact of stalking in a European population: Epidemiological data from a middle-sized German city. British Journal of Psychiatry 187 (2): 168–172.
Emerson, R.M., Ferris, K.O. and Gardner, B.C. (1998) On being stalked. Social Problems 45 (3): 289–314.
Farnham, F.R., James, D.V. and Cantrell, P. (2000) Association between violence, psychosis, and relationship to victim in stalkers. The Lancet 355 (9199): 199.
Finch, E. (2001) The Criminalisation of Stalking: Constructing the Problem and Evaluating the Solution. London: Cavendish Publishing.
Finch, E. (2002) Stalking: A violent crime or a crime of violence? The Howard Journal 41 (5): 422–433.
Galeazzi, G.M., Bučar-Ručman, A., DeFazio, L. and Groenen, A. (2009) Experiences of stalking victims and requests for help in three European countries. A survey. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 15 (3): 243–260.
Gallagher, R. (2002) I’ll be Watching you: True Stories of Stalkers and Their Victims. London: Virginia Books.
Gardner, C.B. (2000) Stalking. In: B.D. Clifton (ed.) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Deviant Behavior, Vol. II. Philadelphia, PA; Hove, UK: Brunner/Routledge, pp. 480–482.
Harris, J. (2000) An Evaluation of the Use and Effectiveness of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Home Office Research Study No. 203. London: Home Office.
Jagessar, J.D.H. and Sheridan, L.P. (2004) Stalking perceptions and experiences across two cultures. Criminal Justice and Behavior 31 (1): 97–119.
Kinkade, P., Burns, R. and Fuentes, A.I. (2005) Criminalizing attractions: Perceptions of stalking and the stalker. Crime and Delinquency 51 (3): 3–25.
Lawson-Cruttenden, T. (2012) Tackling stalking: The way forward. Criminal Law and Justice Weekly p. 34.
Leigh, L.H. (2013) Stalking: The new offences. Criminal Law and Justice Weekly pp. 119–120.
Logan, T. and Cole, J. (2011) Exploring the intersection of partner stalking and sexual abuse. Violence against Women 17 (7): 904–924.
Logan, T. and Walker, R. (2009) Psychological dominance or ‘Business as Usual’? Trauma, Violence and Abuse 10 (3): 247–270.
Logan, T. and Walker, R. (2010) Toward a deeper understanding of the harms caused by partner stalking. Violence and Victims 25 (4): 440–455.
MacEwan, N. (2012) The new stalking offences in English law: Will they provide effective protection from cyberstalking? Criminal Law Review 10: 767–781.
Melton, H.C. (2007) Stalking in the context of intimate partner abuse: In the victims’ words. Feminist Criminology 2 (4): 347–363.
Middlemiss, S. (2010) The new law of stalking in Scotland, too little too late? Juridical Review. Part 4 297–306.
Middlemiss, S. and Sharp, L. (2009) A critical analysis of the law in Scotland. The journal of Criminal Law 73 (1): 89–114.
Modena Group on Stalking (2007) (Eds.) Protecting Women from the New Crime of Stalking: A Comparison of Legislative Approaches within the European Union. Daphne Project 05- 1/125/W, Final Report. Modena: University of Modena and Reggio Emilia.
Morris, S., Anderson, S. and Murray, L. (2002) Stalking and Harassment in Scotland. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Executive Social Research.
Pathé, M. and Mullen, P.E. (1997) The impact of stalkers on their victims. British Journal of Psychiatry 170 (1): 12–17.
Petch, E. (2002) Anti-stalking laws and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 13 (1): 19–34.
Purcell, R., Pathé, M. and Mullen, P.E. (2002) The prevalence and nature of stalking in the Australian community. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 36: 114–120.
Purcell, R., Pathé, M. and Mullen, P.E. (2005) Association between stalking victimisation and psychiatric morbidity in a random community sample. British Journal of Psychiatry 187 (5): 416–420.
Richards, L., Fletcher, H. and Jewell, D. (2012) Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Stalking Law Reform: Main Findings and Recommendations. Justice Unions’ Parliamentary Group.
Scott, A.J., Lloyd, R. and Gavin, J. (2010) The influence of prior relationship on perceptions of stalking in the United Kingdom and Australia. Criminal Justice and Behavior 37 (11): 1185–1194.
Sheridan, L. (2001) The course and nature of stalking: An in-depth victim survey. Journal of Threat Assessment 1 (3): 61–79.
Sheridan, L., Davies, G. and Boon, J. (2001) The course and nature of stalking: A victim perspective. The Howard Journal 40 (3): 215–234.
Sheridan, L. and Roberts, K. (2011) Key questions to consider in stalking cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law’ 29 (2): 255–270.
Sheridan, L. and Scott, A.J. (2010) Perceptions of harm: Verbal versus physical abuse in stalking scenarios. Criminal Justice and Behavior 37 (4): 400–416.
Spitzberg, B.H. and Hoobler, G. (2002) Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New, Media and Society 4 (1): 71–92.
Storey, J.E., Hart, S.D., Reid Meloy, J. and Reavis, J.A. (2009) Psychopathy and stalking. Law and Human Behaviour 33 (3): 237–246.
Tjaden, P.G. (2009) Stalking policies and research in the United States: A twenty-year retrospective. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 15 (3): 261–278.
Tjaden, P. and Thoennes, N. (1998) Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice and Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
Van der Aa, S. and Groenen, A. (2010) Identifying the needs of stalking victims and the responsiveness of the criminal justice system: A qualitative study in Belgium and the Netherlands. Victims and Offenders 6 (1): 19–37.
Weller, M., Hope, L. and Sheridan, L. (2013) Police and public perceptions of stalking: The role of prior victim-offender relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28 (2): 1–20.
Westrup, D., Fremouw, W.J., Thompson, R.N. and Lewis, S.F. (1999) The psychological impact of stalking on female undergraduates. Journal of Forensic Sciences 44 (3): 554–557.
