Stalking is a complex subject that has only recently come to our collective consciousness. Exactly what stalking is, who the stalkers are and how we currently respond to stalking has generated controversy within academic, medical and legal professions. This article proposes a definition of stalking and examines the various preventative measures that victims of stalking may utilize.

Stalking is a complex multifaceted series of behaviors that can strike terror in the heart and mind of a victim. Recently, legislatures have reacted by passing stalking laws. While these laws provide some relief for the victim, there still exists controversy in the academic, medical. and legal professions regarding the effectiveness of certain anti-stalking remedies. This article will review definitions of stalking, and examine various preventative measures used to curb this form of harassing and sometimes violent behavior. These measures continue to generate heated discussion regarding their effectiveness among those that deal with stalking on a personal and professional level.

In 1990, California adopted the first stalking law in the nation. Prior to that time many acts engaged in by stalkers were not considered criminal in nature (Attinello, 1993). Since that time, all but two states have adopted stalking laws. The remaining two states, Arizona and Maine, utilize their harassment and terrorizing statutes to combat stalking (Morin, 1993). Other states continue to amend their statutes to provide more protection to victims of stalking. Depending on the jurisdiction, various acts are prohibited. For example, a suspect may not be present, approach, pursue or follow, trespass onto property, lay in wait, intimidate, vandalize, conduct surveillance, harass, show a weapon, restrain, or commit bodily injury upon the victim. Because of this patchwork of statutes the National Institute of Justice was tasked by Congress in 1993 to develop a model stalking act (Public Law 103).

In October 1993, the National Institute of Justice published its findings and recommended a Model Stalking Code for consideration by states when they amend their existing statutes. This model is a well reasoned approach to stalking and considers the rights of individuals as well as the rights of victims (Model Code, 1993). The Model Code provides:

Any person who:

(a) purposefully engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury to himself or a member of his or her immediate family or to fear the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her immediate family; and

(b) has knowledge or should have knowledge that the specific person will be placed in reasonable fear of bodily injury to himself or herself or a member of his or her immediate family or will be placed in reasonable fear of death of himself or a member of his or her immediate family; and

(c) whose acts induce fear in the specific person of bodily injury to himself or herself or a member of his or her immediate family or induce fear in the specific person of the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her immediate family is guilty of stalking (Model Code, 1993).

The scienter, or knowledge requirement, which requires purposeful or willful acts on behalf of the stalker, insures that a person who happens to follow another merely because they are traveling the same way each day will not violate the statute. It does not require the higher level of specific intent that many criminal statutes levy upon persons accused of certain crimes. Stalking must be directed at a specific victim rather than a class of persons. One of the keys in the above definition is the "course of conduct" requirement. This element mandates that the stalker carry out a series of acts to complete the stalk, but it does not require two or more specific acts of stalking. For example, purchasing stationary, drafting and mailing a threatening letter can be considered a course of conduct. Under this concept, one letter would suffice for the crime of stalking to have been completed. The recommended definition imposes the reasonable person standard and requires fear or actual injury of the victim or the victim's family.

We all know only to well, that no one can guarantee the complete safety of another person. With the proper preparation and determination, almost anyone can be killed. Therefore, care should be used when adapting material in this article to personal circumstances. Additionally, the following material must be tailored to the individual circumstances of the victim, the stalker, and any other significant factors that impact their relationship (Tjaden, 1997).

There are various responses that victims of stalking may undertake (Wallace, 1995). These techniques are utilized by victims, law enforcement officials, professionals and attorneys in dealing with stalkers. It must be stressed that at this stage in our research into this form of behavior there is no single accepted alternative to stalking. There are different types of stalkers and their motives vary.

No matter what alternative is selected, all victims should be advised to maintain a log or diary as it relates to contacts with the stalker. This record may prove invaluable in assisting law enforcement personnel or mental health professionals in understanding the type of stalker with which they are dealing. Additionally, this information may later be used if the decision is made to pursue criminal charges.

There are a variety of responses to stalking. These may be recommended as a single strategy or utilized in combination with other options. These strategies include informal measures, restraining orders, mental health actions and criminal sanctions.

One informal method involves detachment from the stalker. As the name implies, the victim attempts to detach him or herself from any further contact with the stalker. This type of response may work well with those stalkers that make harassing calls and/or send unwanted mail. This type of alternative does not involve any contact with the stalker, rather the victim is advised to change the telephone number and/or obtain a new mailing address. Detachment is simply an avoidance procedure. In some limited situations, this type of intervention may be sufficient to cause the stalker to stop his or her activities (deBecker, 1994).

If the identity of the stalker is known to the victim, the police department may provide informal assistance. Informal contacts may involve the police department notifying the stalker and advising him or her that continued contacts may lead to more serious sanctions. In some situations, this simple intervention has proven sufficient to deter stalkers from further contact with the victim (Raymond, 1994). There is a continuing controversy on whether or not the victim should inform the stalker that he or she does not desire any further contact. One position is that this response from the victim reinforces the stalker's activities by proving to the stalker that the victim is aware of his or her existence. The other position is that a carefully written or worded response to the subject may be sufficient to cause the activity to terminate.

In the past, problems with the use of restraining orders stemmed from lack of clarity in the law and many police officers' unfamiliarity with this civil sanction(Wallace and Kelty, 1996). The use and nature of restraining orders vary from state to state. Most states now authorize persons who are victims of stalking to request the issuance of such an order. A restraining order prohibits five types of behavior:

1. physical assault
2. threatening physical abuse
3. attempting physical abuse
4. sexual assault of the victim or their family
5. damage to the personal property of the victim

As the above list indicates, restraining orders may be issued for a wide variety of acts committed by the offender. However, simply having the order issued does not solve the problem, due process requires that the offender be served with a copy of the order for it to be effective.

All the states provide for the issuance of temporary or emergency restraining orders. These orders are issued by the judge and usually require the threat of immediate injury to the victim. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the issuance of these ex parte type of orders if (1) the request includes specific facts that justify the relief, (2) the notice and opportunity for a full hearing are given as soon as practicable, and (3) the order is issued by a judge (Mitchel v. W.T.Grant Co., 1974).

Restraining orders may provide different forms of relief for the victim of stalking. The traditional and most common form of relief is a "no-contact" order that prohibits the offender from having any form of contact with the victim either at her residence, work or anywhere else. This no-contact order includes telephonic, written and physical contacts.

In the event the stalker violates the restraining order, many statutes authorize charging the offender with civil contempt, criminal contempt or a felony or misdemeanor criminal offense. While police officers cannot normally arrest a person charged with civil contempt, the court may order that the offender pay a fine and serve a period of incarceration. Criminal contempt, if authorized by the state statute, would allow officers to arrest the offender if they found him in violation of the order. Criminal contempt, in many jurisdictions, is treated as a misdemeanor; however, many restraining order statutes allow officers to make warrantless arrests in these situations. If the violation of the order is considered a misdemeanor, many statutes also authorize the warrantless arrest of the offender.

Temporary restraining orders do not solve the problem of stalking. Restraining orders provide the victim with an option in lieu of criminal charges. There are several advantages to the use of restraining orders (Topliffe, 1992). Police and lawyers most often recommend that victims obtain restraining orders because they obligate the criminal justice system to hold offenders accountable once their actions are restricted by the order (Raymond, 1994). According to Dietz, arresting but failing to prosecute or sufficiently imprison the stalker always worsens the situation, and most arrests of stalkers result in the offender being released in a matter of hours or a few days (Dietz et al., 1991). Depending on the court's determination of the seriousness of the specific incident and possibility of future attacks, a restraining order can be valid for an extended period of time-up to a year in most cases. Restraining orders may be easier for victims to obtain than criminal remedies because they aren't encumbered by constitutional provisions, such as due process of law or proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Attinello, 1993).

Arrests may result in the loss of employment, which might increase the tension that already exists between the stalker and his victim. Restraining orders do not preclude the offender from continuing with his employment while at the same time preventing him from contacting the victim.

Restraining orders carry the weight and majesty of a judicial edict and some offenders may think twice before violating a court order. While some offenders may have had numerous contacts with police and even the judicial system, most have not been involved with a direct order from a judge stating that they will not engage in certain conduct. The specter of facing a judge after violating his order may act as a deterrent for some stalkers. Further, restraining orders are primarily concerned with harm to the victim's intangible values such as peace of mind, rather than pecuniary or physical harm. As literally, a "helpless target", the victim's sense of justice tells them they must do something to that person, the stalker. Attaining a restraining order can help fulfill that need, even though, as written later, it may not be the right management plan in certain stalking cases (deBecker, 1994).

In the preceding situations and in circumstances where normal and rational respondents of restraining orders want to avoid further legal problems, restraining orders provide a valuable sanction for the victim's welfare and peace of mind. However, just as there are advantages in this form of protection, so are there potentially serious disadvantages in relying solely on the use of restraining orders. The most obvious and threatening is that the stalker may simply ignore the order with the resulting injury to the victim. A restraining order is merely a piece of paper that carries only as much force and effect as the offender attaches to it. A restraining order may confirm the "relationship" to a stalker who is mentally ill, and may present an "angering challenge" to the stalker who is less ill (Dietz et al., 1991). For these stalkers, a restraining order has all the elements of war. If the offender chooses to ignore it, there is no protection for the victim, unless he or she can contact the police in time for them to arrive and intercede before the stalker attacks and causes harm.

There are additional disadvantages to the use of restraining orders. Many of these weaknesses are written into the very statutes that were enacted to protect the victim. Some statutes require the payment of a filing fee prior to issuance of a restraining order. (Fortunately, most jurisdictions allow for the waiver of the fee if the victim cannot afford to pay it). The payment of such fees act as a deterrent to requesting an order. Some statutes require court or restraining orders. However, no state provides funds or mandates special training for these clerks in this sensitive function. Most states require personal service of the order for them to become effective. However, many offenders are difficult to locate and until they are served with the order the victim is not protected. Furthermore, the plaintiff must sufficiently describe the conduct the order will restrain; if it's too vague, it will be unenforceable. If the order is too short in duration, it allows the defendant to resume unlawful conduct.

Restraining orders usually have no detrimental impact on the pursuer, with the exception of those that they bring upon themselves through the undertaking of criminal action. No restrictions of expected freedoms, control of conduct, or even detectable attention is involved in most cases. In many cases, the stalker avoids violating restraining order terms while still continuing to harass the victim. Many will actually measure the distance at which they are to remain from the victim, and continue the harassment from slightly beyond that point (Attinello, 1993). Enforcing restraining orders is difficult because the police can't accompany the victim continuously in order to ensure that the orders aren't violated.

While there are serious problems with restraining orders, they do provide some stalking victims with an option that may protect them. We must continue to evaluate this form of alternative and seek to improve its effectiveness (Woods, 1993).

Most stalking laws do not mandate mental health evaluations or counseling for stalkers. West Virginia and Minnesota requires convicted stalkers, as a condition of probation or suspension of their sentence, to participate in counseling or medical treatment (W.Va. Code Section 61-2-9a,et. seq. (1993). Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan statutes allow the court to impose counseling or a mental evaluation as a condition of probation, but do not mandate it (Model Code, 1993).

Some jurisdictions provide for involuntary civil commitment of persons, who as a result of a mental defect or disorder, present a threat to themselves or others. These commitments are to mental hospitals and allow for a mental evaluation of the individual. In the event the stalker has issued threats to the victim, a mental evaluation may provide insight that would allow for treatment of the stalker in a civil environment. However, this alternative is subject to controversy regarding the permanence of this strategy. Under most state statutes the stalker must be released unless there are facts supporting continued dangerousness. While these commitments are usually of a short duration, they do offer an alternative to restraining orders that should not be completely ignored.

Filing criminal charges is an obvious response to stalking. When stalking laws were first being considered and enacted by state legislatures, numerous scholars in academia raised various constitutional issues regarding the adoption of these statutes (Sohn, 1994)). These concerns moved from the ivory towers of academia into the courtrooms with the first series of convictions under these newly enacted stalking statutes. A series of stalking court decisions indicate that these concerns were groundless (State v. Cumo, (1993).

In addition to the legal responses available to victims of stalking, there are a number of physical responses that victims of stalking may want to undertake. There are three basic security responses that can be considered: residential security, office security, and vehicle security. Stalkers may appear at any of these locations (Combating Terrorism, no date).

Improving residential security measures is often one of the simplest corrective actions a potential victim may undertake. Many local law enforcement agencies offer suggestions to citizens on how to prevent burglaries and other crimes(Trojanowicz,1990). Victims of stalking should consider adopting these measures if they already have not done so.

Apartment or Condominium living offers several advantages to victims of stalkers: an apartment or condominium offers the benefit of having close neighbors. These complexes also offer the opportunity of sharing the expense of a security officer, a fence and exterior lighting. However, apartments or condominiums also have negative aspects to them. Many people live in these complexes which gives strangers access to shared or common areas such as hallways, garages, and other locations where a stalker might lurk.

In selecting a residence, victims should determine if there are alternate arrival and departure routes so that if the stalker is approaching on one street, the victims may flee on another road. Houses should not be located on dead end streets or in rural or sparsely populated areas. Victims of stalking should install a residential security system with a panic button, and insure it is functioning both when they are away from the home and when they are in the house. All exterior doors should be solid and fitted with a peephole and secondary locking devise of the dead bolt type. All doors should remain locked except when entering or leaving the residence. Sliding doors and patio doors should also be secured. All fences surrounding the property should be in good repair and thick cover caused by shrubs, bushes, trees and flowers should be cut back to prevent a secret approach by the stalker. Exterior lighting is a must and the motion sensor types of lights provide excellent warning. Even with this type of lighting, many people forget to secure all electrical power and fuse boxes. Even the best type of lighting system is useless if the perpetrator can cut off the power (Combating Terrorism, no date). Change all locks immediately if a key is lost or misplaced. Never hide a spare key around the exterior of the house. Some stalkers will wait and watch as family members or the intended victim approaches the house and uses the spare key.

Families should obtain emergency equipment such as flashlights, candles, first aid kits, or battery operated radios and place them in a convenient location inside the house that is accessible by all family members. A dog is an excellent security system in that it may provide warning of the approach of unknown persons. There are a number of training programs available for dog owners.

Servicemen or repair persons should only be admitted if they were called by the victim. Identification should be checked and verified. Any domestics such as maids or gardeners should be carefully screened before they are hired and they should never be given a key or other unrestricted access to the home. References should be asked for and checked with special attention paid to previous employer's opinions regarding the judgment and discretion displayed by domestics.

Victims should make contacts with neighbors and enlist their support and assistance if appropriate. Any programs such as neighborhood watch should be requested to report the presence of strangers at or near the victim's home. Children or young family members should never admit a stranger into the home without checking with an adult.

Telephone numbers should be changed and be unlisted. These numbers

should only be given to those who have a need to contact the victim at home. A message machine should be used and a non-family member should make the recording. Members of the family should screen all calls before answering the telephone and Caller ID if available should be installed and used. Some telephone companies provide a method of dialing the most recent incoming call. This option may prove valuable in tracing calls from the stalker. Victims should not give out their telephone numbers in response to "wrong number" calls. A current list of emergency telephone numbers should be taped near all the phones. These numbers should include police, fire, paramedics, and hospitals. Family members should never reveal the whereabouts of other family members to unknown callers. Baby-sitters or domestics should be instructed to tell unknown callers that the requested family member is unavailable, and request that the caller leave his or her name and number and that information will be relayed to the appropriate person (Raymond, 1994).

The exploits, capture and subsequent trial of the Unabomber has exposed millions of Americans to the fact that the mail can be used to injure, maim, or kill another person. Stalkers intent on harming their prey can use the mail to inflict injury while maintaining a safe distance. Victims of stalkers should be conscious of this alternative when dealing with any mail. Screen routine mail to determine that it has not been tampered with. Don't mail letters that describe family business or travel arrangements from the home or office, rather deposit them at a drop box or at the post office. Criminals, terrorists, and stalkers have used the mail to harm their targets in a variety of methods. Most of these devices have certain characteristics and all mail should be examined for the following suspicious features:

Is the mail from an unknown or unusual sender?
Is there a return address?
Is the size abnormal or unusual?
Is the item marked with the victim's name, "Personal For Ö"
Does the return address differ from the postmark?

If the victim is suspicious, the mail should be isolated. It should not be placed in water as this will make the paper soggy and might cause a spring-loaded devise to activate. Victims should contact the police and follow their instructions (Combating Terrorism, no date).

Unless the victim is the owner of a business or a high ranking supervisor, changing office security measures may be difficult. However, businesses who are informed of potential danger to employees and fail to take reasonable actions may be liable for any resulting injury to the employee. This information may assist the victim in securing changes within the office environment that will offer some increased level of protection. Office staff should be alerted to immediately report any unusual or suspicious individuals or activity. The victim should park in a secure area if possible. Keys and locks should be inventoried and changed if any keys are unaccounted for. If there is an on-site security manager inform him or her of the situation and provide a description of the perpetrator. Simply acknowledging that the stalker may attack the victim at his or her place of employment will encourage all persons to be more aware and cautious in the workplace.

Habits allow stalkers to predict their victim's behavior, actions and whereabouts (Wallace, 1995). Everyone's most predictable habit is the route driven from their home to work or other commonly frequented locations such as the children's school or the grocery store. Cars should be serviced regularly and not subject to stalling. The gas tank should be half full at all times.

Insure all passengers are aware of your situation and agree to follow your directions. When traveling in a vehicle, be aware of the surroundings at all times, especially when stopped for a traffic lights. In those situations, there should be sufficient distance between the car in front so that the victim can drive away if necessary. When parking the car always secure the door and lock the garage door. Always check the interior of the car before entering it both at home and especially when leaving work. Survey the surrounding area when stopping and exiting the car, before you unlock the doors.

All the windows should be rolled up to a position that prevents any attacker from reaching inside the car and either unlocking the door or grabbing the driver. Be alert for any vehicle which is unusual or keeps appearing at odd times and places. Adopting vehicle security measures requires a change in victims' mental attitude rather than expensive modifications to their car.

Stalking is a newly emerging type of activity that has only recently been the subject of intense study. States have enacted statutes that prohibit stalking, and the first series of cases dealing with these laws illustrates a judicial acceptance of the prohibition of this type of behavior. Just as there are different types of stalkers so are there different alternative methods of intervening or responding to stalking.

Each of these responses must be evaluated to determine if it is the most appropriate alternative available to the victim. Professionals should not automatically assume that all strategies will work equally well in every situation. Stalking behavior must continue to be researched and what types of activities constitutes a valid response must be assessed. Only by understanding the needs of the victim and the dynamics involved in stalking can we hope to resolve this type of activity.

Attinello, K.L. (1993). Anti-Stalking Legislation: A Comparison of Traditional Remedies Available for Victims of Harassment Versus California Penal Code Section 646.9, Pacific Law Journal 24.

Combating Terrorism, A Personal Guide, (Department of Defense, Washington D.C.)

de Becker, G. (1994, June). Intervention Decisions-The Value of Flexibility, Unpublished paper presented at the 4^th Annual Threat Management Conference.

Dietz, P.E., et al., Threatening and Otherwise Inappropriate Letters to Hollywood Celebrities, Journal of Forensic Sciences 36,185.

Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600 (1974).

Morin, K.C. (1993). The Phenomenon of Stalking: Do Existing State Statutes Provide Adequate Protection?, San Diego Journal of Justice 1, 123.

National Institute of Justice (1993). Project to Develop a Model Anti-Stalking Code for States. Washington D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Raymond, D. (1994). "How to Manage a Stalking Case," Symposium conducted at the 4^th Annual Threat Management Conference.

Sohn, E.F. (1994) Antistalking Statutes: Do They Actually Protect Victims?, Crim. L. Bull. 30, 203.

State v. Culmo, 43 Conn. Supp. 46, 642 A.2nd 90 (1993).

Tjaden, P. (1997). The Crime of Stalking: How Big is the Problem, Research Preview, National Institute of Justice, Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Justice.

Topliffe, E. (1992). Why Civil Protection Orders Are Effective Remedies for Domestic Violence, But Mutual Protection Orders Are Not, Indiana Law Journal 67, 1039.

Trojanowicz, R. and B. Bucqueroux, (1990). Community Policing, Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Justice, and State, and the Judiciary and Related Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (1993). Public Law 102-395 Section 109(b).

Wallace, H. (1995). A Prosecutor's Guide to Stalking, The Prosecutor 20, 26.

Wallace, H. and K. Kelty, (1996). Stalking and Restraining Orders: A Legal and Psychological Perspective, Journal of Crime and Justice, 18, 99.

W.Va. Code Section 61-2-9a - 61-2-9k (1993) and Minn. Stat. Section 609.746 (1993).

Woods, L. (1993). Anti-Stalker Legislation: A Legislation Attempt to Surmount the Inadequates of Protective Orders, Indiana Law Review. 27, 449.