4.5 Stalking

Stalking is a serious crime involving a pattern of unwanted behavior directed at a specific person. It requires specific intent, credible threats, a course of conduct, and the victim's reasonable fear. These elements distinguish stalking from harassment and other related offenses.

Stalking laws aim to protect victims from persistent intimidation and potential violence. They cover various behaviors, including cyberstalking, and often involve restraining orders. Sentencing factors consider the severity of the offense, prior relationships, and the defendant's criminal history.

Elements of stalking

• Stalking is a criminal offense that involves a pattern of unwanted behavior directed at a specific person
• The key elements that make up the crime of stalking include specific intent, credible threat, course of conduct, and the victim's reasonable fear
• Stalking laws are designed to protect victims from harassment, intimidation, and potential violence

Stalking vs harassment

• Stalking and harassment are related but distinct offenses
• Harassment typically involves isolated incidents of bothersome or annoying behavior, while stalking involves a more persistent pattern of conduct
• Stalking requires specific intent to cause fear in the victim, whereas harassment may not always involve intent to cause fear

Specific intent requirement

• Stalking is a specific intent crime, meaning the perpetrator must intend to engage in behavior that causes fear or emotional distress in the victim
• The intent requirement distinguishes stalking from accidental or coincidental contact with the victim
• Specific intent can be inferred from the stalker's actions and the surrounding circumstances

Proving intent to cause fear

Top images from around the web for Proving intent to cause fear

• 

  Threat - Free of Charge Creative Commons Highway sign image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Dr. Deb: Stalking Safety Tips View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Kittling: Books: Credible Threat by J.A. Jance View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Threat - Free of Charge Creative Commons Highway sign image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Dr. Deb: Stalking Safety Tips View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Proving intent to cause fear

• 

  Threat - Free of Charge Creative Commons Highway sign image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Dr. Deb: Stalking Safety Tips View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Kittling: Books: Credible Threat by J.A. Jance View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Threat - Free of Charge Creative Commons Highway sign image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Dr. Deb: Stalking Safety Tips View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Prosecutors must prove that the stalker intended to cause fear in the victim
• Evidence of intent may include the stalker's statements, prior threats, or escalating behavior
• The stalker's knowledge of the victim's fear or emotional distress can also demonstrate intent

Credible threat standard

• Many stalking statutes require a "credible threat" as an element of the offense
• A credible threat is a threat that places the victim in reasonable fear for their safety or the safety of others
• The threat can be explicit or implied based on the stalker's conduct

Explicit vs implied threats

• Explicit threats are direct statements of intent to harm the victim, such as "I'm going to kill you"
• Implied threats are actions or behaviors that suggest potential harm, such as leaving threatening messages or following the victim
• Both explicit and implied threats can satisfy the credible threat standard in stalking cases

Reasonable person standard

• The credible threat standard is often evaluated using a "reasonable person" standard
• The question is whether a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances would feel threatened or fearful based on the stalker's conduct
• This objective standard helps ensure that the victim's fear is justified and not merely subjective

Course of conduct

• Stalking requires a "course of conduct," which is a pattern of behavior involving two or more acts directed at the victim
• The acts can include following, surveillance, communication, or other unwanted contact
• The course of conduct must demonstrate a continuity of purpose or intent to harass or intimidate the victim

Two or more acts

• Most stalking statutes require at least two acts as part of the course of conduct
• The acts do not need to be identical but should be related in purpose or intent
• Multiple acts help establish a pattern of behavior rather than isolated incidents

Continuity of purpose

• The course of conduct in stalking must exhibit a continuity of purpose or intent
• The stalker's actions should be connected by a common goal of harassing, intimidating, or causing fear in the victim
• Continuity of purpose distinguishes stalking from random or unrelated acts

Victim's reasonable fear

• Stalking requires that the victim experience reasonable fear or emotional distress as a result of the stalker's conduct
• The fear must be objectively reasonable based on the circumstances, not just subjective to the victim
• The level of fear or emotional distress required may vary depending on the jurisdiction

Subjective vs objective fear

• Subjective fear refers to the victim's actual experience of fear or emotional distress
• Objective fear is evaluated using a reasonable person standard, considering whether a reasonable person would feel fearful in the same situation
• Most stalking laws require both subjective and objective fear

Degree of emotional distress

• Stalking laws often require that the victim suffer a certain degree of emotional distress
• The required level of distress may be described as "substantial emotional distress," "significant mental suffering," or similar language
• The victim's testimony and other evidence can help establish the extent of their emotional distress

Cyberstalking

• Cyberstalking is a form of stalking that involves the use of electronic communication or technology
• Stalkers may use email, social media, GPS tracking, or other digital means to harass or intimidate victims
• Cyberstalking has become increasingly prevalent with the growth of technology and online communication

Use of electronic communication

• Cyberstalking typically involves the use of electronic communication, such as email, instant messaging, or social media posts
• Stalkers may send repeated unwanted messages, post threatening content, or impersonate the victim online
• Electronic communication can provide evidence of the stalker's intent and course of conduct

Interstate commerce nexus

• Federal cyberstalking laws often require a nexus to interstate commerce, meaning the stalking involves communication across state lines
• The use of the internet or other electronic means that cross state boundaries can satisfy this requirement
• The interstate commerce nexus allows for federal jurisdiction over cyberstalking cases

Defenses to stalking charges

• Defendants accused of stalking may raise various defenses to challenge the charges
• Common defenses include lack of specific intent, constitutionally protected activities, and factual disputes
• The availability and strength of defenses depend on the specific circumstances of each case

Lack of specific intent

• A defendant may argue that they lacked the specific intent required for stalking
• This defense asserts that the defendant did not intend to cause fear or emotional distress in the victim
• Evidence of the defendant's motives, beliefs, or mental state can be relevant to this defense

Constitutionally protected activities

• Some defendants may claim that their alleged stalking behavior is protected by constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech or assembly
• This defense argues that the defendant's conduct falls within the scope of constitutionally protected activities
• Courts must balance the defendant's rights against the victim's right to be free from harassment and fear

Restraining orders

• Restraining orders, also known as protective orders, are court orders designed to protect stalking victims
• These orders typically prohibit the stalker from contacting, approaching, or harassing the victim
• Violation of a restraining order can result in additional criminal charges and penalties

Temporary vs permanent orders

• Temporary restraining orders (TROs) are short-term orders issued on an emergency basis, often without notice to the stalker
• Permanent restraining orders (PROs) are longer-term orders issued after a hearing where both parties have an opportunity to present evidence
• TROs provide immediate protection, while PROs offer more lasting protection for the victim

Violation penalties

• Violating a restraining order is a separate criminal offense in most jurisdictions
• Penalties for violation may include fines, probation, or imprisonment, depending on the severity and circumstances of the violation
• Repeat violations or violations accompanied by other criminal acts may result in enhanced penalties

Sentencing factors

• When a defendant is convicted of stalking, courts consider various factors in determining the appropriate sentence
• Sentencing factors may include the severity of the stalking, the defendant's criminal history, and the impact on the victim
• These factors help ensure that the punishment is proportionate to the offense and the individual circumstances

Prior relationship with victim

• The prior relationship between the stalker and the victim is a relevant sentencing factor
• Stalking by a former intimate partner or family member may be considered more serious due to the breach of trust and potential for escalation
• Courts may impose harsher sentences in cases involving domestic violence or abuse

Defendant's criminal history

• The defendant's criminal history, particularly any prior stalking or violent offenses, is an important sentencing consideration
• A history of similar offenses may indicate a pattern of behavior and a higher risk of future harm to the victim or others
• Repeat offenders may face enhanced penalties or mandatory minimum sentences

Stalking laws by jurisdiction

• Stalking laws vary by jurisdiction, with each state and the federal government having its own statutes
• While there are common elements across jurisdictions, the specific language, requirements, and penalties can differ
• It's important to consult the relevant statutes in the jurisdiction where the stalking occurred

Federal vs state statutes

• Federal stalking laws, such as the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act, address stalking that crosses state lines or involves interstate commerce
• State stalking laws cover stalking behavior that occurs within the state's borders
• Federal and state laws may overlap in some cases, allowing for prosecution at both levels

Key differences in scope

• Stalking laws can vary in their scope and applicability across jurisdictions
• Some states may have broader definitions of stalking, covering a wider range of behaviors
• Penalties, sentencing guidelines, and available defenses may also differ between jurisdictions
• Understanding the specific scope of the applicable stalking law is crucial for both prosecution and defense