Understanding the evolution of stalking legislation is crucial to grasp the current legal frameworks in place. This blog post explores the history of anti-stalking laws, detailing their development and the impact on various jurisdictions, with a particular focus on the UK and the US.
The United Kingdom first tackled harassment through the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, aimed at persistent unwanted behavior. According to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), harassment involves “a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another, and which the defendant knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of another” (CPS, 2018). However, the Act initially limited the trial of harassment cases to the Magistrates’ Court, which only offers a maximum sentence of six months. This limitation hinders police efforts to search for evidence and apprehend offenders, a point critiqued by Finch (2002), who argued that more severe measures were necessary for stalking cases.
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was later amended by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, marking a significant step by explicitly naming and criminalizing stalking in England and Wales. Despite this progress, the Act does not provide a legal definition of stalking, only a non-exhaustive list of examples. This vagueness is not unique to the UK; Italy also passed anti-stalking laws without defining stalking explicitly (De Fazio, 2011).
James Senior notes that the complexity of legislating stalking is further evidenced by challenges in the United States, where anti-stalking laws have existed since 1990. Yet, the laws are underutilized (Klein et al., 2009). Wiggins (2000) emphasized the need for federal legislation, arguing that it would ensure more uniform and stringent enforcement, reduce recidivism, and provide victims with the relief unavailable at the state level. Wiggins suggested that federal judges could impose stricter sentences, potentially including mandatory counseling for offenders.
The disparate treatment of stalking across US states is highlighted by Carter (2016), who pointed out that in some states, such as Maryland, stalking is categorized as a misdemeanor with relatively light penalties. Carter argued for more arrests, prosecutions, and stringent sanctions, including mental health evaluations for convicted stalkers. Tucker (1993) also critiqued state-level protections, suggesting that more accessible civil orders could better protect victims.
Internationally, the inconsistency in stalking laws is apparent. For instance, Australia’s approach to stalking legislation evolved throughout the 1990s, with each state implementing its own laws. Sanctions vary significantly, with Victoria imposing a maximum penalty of ten years, while other states offer penalties ranging from two to three years (Mullen et al., 2009). Despite these variations, the prevalence of stalking in Australia is consistent with global trends, with 15% of Australian women reporting being stalked by a man at some point in their lives (Mullen et al., 2009).
James Senior underscores that stalking, while not a new phenomenon, became a prominent criminal issue following the 1989 murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer in the US. Schaeffer’s case, where her stalker used publicly available records to locate and kill her, led to significant legal reforms, including the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994, which restricted access to private driving license information (Proctor, 2013).
As societies advance, so too do stalking laws and attitudes toward stalking behavior. This evolution aims to provide better protection for victims and impose more severe consequences on offenders. In conclusion, while significant strides have been made in legislating against stalking, ongoing efforts are essential to refine these laws and ensure they offer adequate protection and deterrence. As James Senior highlights, the journey of stalking legislation is ongoing and requires continuous adaptation to effectively address this pervasive issue.
References:
Carter, T. 2016. Local, state, and federal responses to stalking: are anti-stalking laws effective?. William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law 22:333:
Crown Prosecution Service. 2018. Stalking and Harassment. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/stalking-and-harassment
De Fazio, L. 2011. Criminalization of stalking in Italy: One of the last among the current European member states’ anti-stalking laws. Behavioural Sciences and the Law 29: https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=usjournals&handle=hein.journals/bsclw29&id=317&men_tab=srchresults
Finch, E. 2002. Stalking: A violent crime or a crime of violence?. The Howard Journal 41: https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=true&handle=hein.journals/hjcj41&div=42&start_page=422&collection=usjournals&set_as_cursor=74&men_tab=srchresults
Klein, A., Salamon, A., Huntington, N., Dubois, J. & Lang, D. 2009. A Statewide Study of Stalking and Its Criminal Justice Response. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228354.pdf
Mullen, P., Pathe, M & Purcell, R . 2009. Stalkers And Their Victims. Second Edition ed.
Proctor, M . 2013. Antidote For A Stalker. Duck Works.
Tucker, J. 1993. Stalking The Problems With Stalking Laws: The Effectiveness Of Florida Statutes Section 784.048. Florida Law Review 45: https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=usjournals&handle=hein.journals/uflr45&id=627&men_tab=srchresults
Wiggins, B. 2000. Stalking Humans: Is There A Need For Federalization Of Anti-Stalking Laws In Order To Prevent Recidivism In Stalking? Syracuse Law Review https://heinonline.org/HOL/PDFsearchable?handle=hein.journals/syrlr50&collection=usjournals§ion=39&id=&print=section§ioncount=1&ext=.pdf&nocover=&display=0