Stalking Defined by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.
Stalking Defined by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.© 2002 Equal Justice Foundation
| Home | Abstract | Contents | Site Map | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Comments? | Get Newsletter | Help the EJF |
| Next — How to deal with a stalker |
Stalking is the willful, malicious and repeated following, harassing, or contacting of another person. Stalking becomes a criminal act when the harassment causes a "reasonable person" to feel fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
The problems begin with the fact that there is no enforceable definition of what constitutes a "reasonable person," nor is there generally any due process attempt to prove willful intent in stalking cases. In the gender feminist world all women are "reasonable" and all men are not, and if she doesn't like what he is doing it must be willful intent to stalk her. That ideology is hardly a sound basis for draconian legislation that makes stalking a felony in Colorado and many other states.
The following should not be interpreted to suggest that stalking isn't a real, and often frightening phenomenon. However, as with other issues of domestic violence the term, and now crime, of stalking have been so broadly defined that the behavior of any lovesick swain is now a crime. In many cases we have made normal human behavior a felony.
I have been stalked, and know other men who have endured this as well, so it isn't a topic I treat lightly. After my car windows were shattered, and tires flattened and slashed, for six months in 1999 I would not start my vehicle without first opening the hood and looking under it for bombs. I still have a security feature on the telephone that doesn't allow anyone to call between 10 PM and 6 AM after multiple episodes of hang-up phone calls in the early morning hours. In addition, mail was stolen, the mail box pushed over, and a number of drive by's were witnessed.
The behavior and actions of stalkers is often bizarre and all the more frightening thereby. Consider:
• A prominent oceanographer I worked with at Woods Hole eventually took a position in England after enduring more than a decade of stalking by his ex-wife. Her behavior was so outrageous even Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution had been forced to take out a restraining order against her to keep her off the property.
• In January, 2000, a 19-year old Colorado Springs woman broke windows in her ex-boyfriend's car in Lakewood, Colorado, then poured gasoline inside and set it on fire. His car, six nearby vehicles, and the carport were destroyed.
• In Nevada an exotic dancer convicted of stalking had posted a map on the Web with directions to the man's house.
On the next page Wendy McElroy gives a woman's perspective on stalking and offers some useful guidance on what to do about it. But, as a male, the laws and police are likely to be of no use if a woman is stalking you, and she will probably use the laws against you to claim she is the one in fear. In my case numerous calls I made to the police invoked no action against the woman. Eventually a civil suit convinced her to cease and desist but the cost to me was in the tens of thousands of dollars and, even then, she persisted for nearly five years.
Available data show, as with domestic violence, that "stalking" behavior is fairly evenly divided between men and women. However, in our experience, women are much more persistent with such behavior. We are aware of several incidents of female stalking of former male partners that extends over more than ten years, although cases of men stalking women for similar periods are not unknown.
The most common version of stalking reported to the Equal Justice Foundation is a woman who takes out a restraining order against a man and then stalks him with cell phone in hand. When she finds him, she calls the police, who then arrest the man for violating the restraining order. In one case the woman took a job at the grocery store where she knew her ex-husband shopped. When he came in to buy groceries, she called the cops, and he spent Christmas and New Years in jail.
But not everything should be considered stalking.
Rather as a joke it would appear. But stalking is now a felony in Colorado and many other states. However, that generally only applies if a man is stalking a woman unless you are a famous male actor.
An EJF member recently supplied some examples of how girls (as in young women) regard stalking:
• Daily Dose of Stalking Stupidity #101
• Remaining subtle, avoiding fatal attractions: keys to successful stalking
Incidentally, we recognize these lighthearted essays are satire, but when the situation is reversed it is deadly serious for a man and can easily ruin his life, to say nothing of his life savings. As Dr. Michael Conner notes in a following article "Nearly 90% of all college students who break up will engage in what is called 'unwanted pursuit behavior.'" By any definition, such behavior as the young women outline in the above essays must therefore be classified as normal. Yet men are constantly arrested for such behavior.
In the real world the common scenario is for a woman to take out a restraining order and then stalk the man to get him arrested. Consider a recent case where: "I am scared to death of her...she called the police on me because she found me in the bus station, catching the bus I have been riding for 2 years." Because of repeated reports of such incidents we have been beefing up the section on Defensive Male Actions because it is virtually certain the police will not take any steps to protect men who find themselves being stalked.
The following are taken from screening questions on the National Violence Against Women (NVAW) survey (2000, p. 6) defining what constituted "stalking" in their view:
• Not including bill collectors, telephone solicitors, or other salespeople, has anyone, male or female ever:
___ Followed you or spied on you?
___ Sent you unsolicited letters or written correspondence?
___ Made unsolicited phone calls to you?
___ Stood outside your home, school, or workplace?
___ Showed up at places you were even though he or she had no business being there?
___ Left unwanted items for you to find?
___ Tried to communicate in other ways against your will?
___ Vandalized your property or destroyed something you loved?
• You call a girl up that you met asking for a date. She says she is busy. You see her somewhere again and say hi. She smiles so you try for another date. No go. Try again and it must be "stalking."
• You have a disagreement and she never wants to see you again. You send roses with a note. No response. You try calling a couple of times. That must be "stalking" as well.
• You write her a letter or email saying you're sorry, and you would like to make up. You work in the same building and you leave the letter on her chair at work or send the email to her. You must be "stalking" her. Sending a letter or email can now be considered a crime!
• Your car breaks down and you ride the bus for a week. The bus stop is outside where she works. The bus is usually late and you are standing there waiting when she sees you day after day. How could it be anything but "stalking"?
• You've broken up. After you try calling her a couple of times you run into some friends of hers and ask how she's doing. Could it be you are spying on her?
• She works at a business you frequent and you smile and flirt with her, as she does with you. You try to make a date or see her outside her work. Stalking.
Most people would regard such events as well within the normal course of human affairs. The path to true romance is filled with potholes but now we've made it a crime. Is that wise?
Remember, in such cases proof is not required, a female "victim" is believed without reservation or question, and hearsay is admissible. Of course it isn't considered possible that the "victim" could be paranoid or psychotic. And her "fear" must be considered "reasonable" regardless of the actual circumstances.
How likely is it she might use such charges as revenge for some real or imagined wrong you may have done her?
Maybe you deal with females on another planet than the one I live on, but such raw, naked power to destroy will be used with evil intent here.
Will these draconian measures stop any individual bent on death and destruction. Certainly not! Consider the following article by Ellen Sorokin in The Washington Times, April 17, 2000.
"Anti-stalking legislation in the 1990's has been hailed by women's groups and public officials as a long overdue crackdown on abusive spouses and 'twisted psychopaths.' Prosecutors and police officers report that the laws rarely work. 'It's just a piece of paper,' according to Arlington Deputy Attorney Theo Stamos. The restraining orders work in cases where the would-be-stalker is basically law-abiding, said Dorothy J. Lenning, with a Maryland advocacy group for domestic-violence victims, 'But there are a lot of guys out there who are not law-abiding, so restraining orders aren't so successful.' Forensic consultant Reid Meloy agrees: '[Restraining orders] really don't affect the very delusional.'"
The Times story also reported on two stalker-turned-murder cases in Maryland. This is out of 9,000 restraining orders issued in Maryland last year. Only 93 persons were held in contempt of protective orders in Maryland between 1997 and 1999. The story suggested that this was not enough.
The Times article is making a case that the laws don't work because there has to be some evidence to convict a stalker of a crime in many states. The implication is that courts and police shouldn't need evidence other than the allegations made by the "victim." In short, you are guilty because she says you are. And, of course, if you are a male being stalked by a female, such laws don't apply and the police will almost certainly do nothing except possibly ridicule you.
The Times reporter does not question whether the 350,000 protective orders for stalking issued each year are justified, or consider that an unfair judgment may actually be the catalyst that sparks an otherwise ugly situation into violence. She does quote experts who suggest that law-abiding men aren't a threat (so why is the protective order needed?), and that delusional individuals are nearly impossible to stop.
Although Ms. Sorokin's intent was to argue that laws should be tougher, her facts suggest that the laws do nothing to prevent violence. She conveniently ignores the much bigger issue of how these laws are abused as leverage in domestic disputes and divorces, and effectively deny due process of law to those accused.
There is other evidence that the present laws don't stop, or even greatly hinder those who stalk. While we believe the National Violence Against Women survey is fatally flawed overall, they do present the only semi-quantitative evidence we have found on how effective current anti-stalking measures are. Tjaden and Thoennes (2000, p. 52) report that more than two thirds of the restraining orders issued against men for stalking women were violated and nine out of ten issued against women stalking men were ignored in their sample.
We have also seen frequent attempts to define stalking in a context that includes two people presently living together, the logic of which escapes us.
It appears quite evident that with stalking we are presently treating the symptoms and not the cause.
By 2004 it has become relatively trivial to "stalk" someone via the Internet. Talk to any private investigator or reporter and you'll find they currently have access to huge databases with virtually unlimited details about the life of almost any individual, e.g., ChoicePoint . Access to these databases is becoming ever easier for anyone with minimal computer skills.
With regard to "stalking" consider the following scenario from the July 2004 IEEE Spectrum (p. 34) based on surveillance technology and databases that will almost certainly be available within a decade
"Passing you on the street, I swipe my RFID reader to obtain your name and address. Googling you on a few public databases, including one of new homeowners in the neighborhood, I discover that you're in the market for a used lawn mower. Your bank account is in order, and your credit is fantastic, even after you paid off your ex-wife's debt as part of your recent divorce settlement. You had a quadruple bypass last year and need a riding mower just like the one sitting in my garage. Your spy tracker alerts you to the fact that I'm checking you out, prompting you to launch your own investigation. You learn I suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder and am taking medication to keep my life together. But you also know that my disorder manifests as a cleaning fetish; it's a good bet that the lawn mower I listed on eBay is in pristine shape. Furthermore, you can infer that I'm so desperate to make my credit card payments this month that I'll sell you that mower for a song."
Now imagine you are being stalked and someone can get that level of information about you at almost no cost? For example, it presently costs $6 to download all your court records in Colorado from COcourts.com. Court records from Denver can be had free. And these are just a couple of currently-available public databases.
Or take stalking to another level of technology. In a spinoff of military observation, for $750, (plus options) you can currently purchase a radio-controlled airplane from Draganfly Innovations, Inc. in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. With optional eye-cam or digital still camera, the Predator will cruise silently for up to 1.5 hours on lithium-polymer batteries along a GPS-guided flight path transmitting digital still photographs and real-time color video. You're just out flying your model airplane. No harm in that is there?
It is obvious that no laws against stalking can curtail the surveillance technology currently available, or soon to be available. Thus, the only purpose the current laws can serve is to provide a weapon for harassment and vengeance.
The only thing we've found effective to end stalking is distance. Face it, they probably aren't going to stop anytime soon of their own volition. Having them arrested is more likely to increase your danger than stop them. As shown before, restraining orders provide no protection, and all too frequently end in murder, yours.
So you'd best make up your mind to move. We recommend a minimum of 500 miles away, but 1,000 would be better.
In extreme cases one can even change their Social Security number. But before you go that far, Jack Luna, in his book How To Be Invisible: The Essential Guide To Protecting You Personal Privacy, Your Assets and Your Life offers some valuable tips including the following:
1. Stop receiving mail at your home address.
If you truly want to avoid a stalker or other nuisances and uninvited guests, never allow your name to be connected to where you live (after you move). Rent a private mailbox with a commercial mail-receiving agency. A "ghost" address is better: Pick up your mail and courier, e.g. FedEx, UPS, packages at a local office or at your accountants or a friends home. Some people even have mail sent to their attorney's office and then have it forwarded to the "ghost" address or mailbox. More expensive but probably safer.
For license renewals, or anything else that shows up in a public records search, create a limited liability company (see No. 4) and buy a forwarding address from a service in Alaska.
Even better, cancel your land line and use a prepaid cell phone. If you absolutely must have a land line for an Internet connection, at least cancel your present phone. Then after you move, and at least two weeks later, have a legal proxy or nominee (established with a simple form) order a new unlisted number.
Include whatever security features are available with the new service, e.g., Caller ID (a must), call screening, no calls except in emergencies between certain hours (stops those 1 AM hang up calls), etc. Talk with the phone representative and find out what options are available at your new location. Also ask them about how to have a call traced if you suspect that certain someone has tracked you down despite all your precautions.
3. Never use you license as ID.
If you don't have a passport, order one. Passports don't list Social Security numbers or addresses.
4. Take your name off all titles.
Establish a New Mexico limited liability company. LLC ownership is anonymous in that state, and no annual reports are required. Use your LLC when you purchase vehicles, boats, real estate, or whatever. Unlike corporations, single-member LLC's do not usually require a tax ID (EIN), and are not named on your tax returns. Any income is listed as personal income on Schedule C.
"Dumpster diving" is becoming ever more popular and virtually everything about you can be learned from your trash. Don't make it easy for them.
And don't assume that after one year, or five years, that a stalker has given up. In many cases this game goes on for more than a decade.
| Home | Abstract | Contents | Site Map | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Comments? | Get Newsletter | Help the EJF |
| Next — How to deal with a stalker |
This site is supported and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.