Abstract
One of the issues arising out of the introduction of stalking legislation is how to distinguish between the kinds of courting behaviours, reconciliations, termination of relationships and other social interactions that are within the ‘normal range’ and those behaviours that are perceived by the wider community as stalking. This study examined the impact of intent, persistence, perspective and gender on perceptions of behaviours following the dissolution of a relationship. Responses of 868 community members indicated that behaviour was only perceived as illegal when explicit evidence of intent was present rather than when it was absent. Ratings for foreseeability of arousing fear were higher when explicit evidence of intent was present rather than absent and when behaviour constituted a repeated rather than single episode. Participants were more likely to determine that the behaviour of the actor would be repeated when the scenario depicted a repeat episode rather than a single episode. Suggested target responses differed according to whether or not the scenario depicted explicit evidence of intent to arouse fear. Results are discussed in relation to previous studies on community perceptions of stalking as well as the capacity of the research to inform interpretations of stalking legislation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, S. C. (1993). Anti-stalking laws: Will they curb the erotomanic’s obsessive pursuit? Law and Psychology Review, 17, 171–191.
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A., & Wotman, S. R. (1990). Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives about anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 994–1005.
Beatty, D. (2003). Stalking legislation in the United States. Brewster, In Mary, P. (Ed). Stalking: Psychology, risk factors, interventions and law. (pp. 21–55). xxiv, I-20 pp. Kingston, NJ, USA: Civic Research Institute.
Boychuk, M. K. (1994). Are Stalking Laws Unconstitutionally Vague or Overbroad? Northwestern Univeristy Law Review, 88(2), 769–802.
Brewster, M. P. (2000) Stalking by former intimates: Verbal threats and other predictors of physical violence. Violence and Victims, 15, 41–54.
Budd, T., & Mattinson, J. (2000). The extent and nature of stalking: Findings from the 1998 British Crime Survey. Home Office Research Study N. 210. London: Home Office.
Chaikin, A. L., & Darley, J. M. (1973). Victim or perpetrator?: Defensive attribution of responsibility and the need for order and justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 268–275.
Crimes Act 1958 [Victoria]
Criminal Code [Stalking] Amendment Act 1999 [Queensland]
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 [South Australia]
Davis, K. E., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Research on stalking: What do we know and where do we go? Violence and Victims, 15(4), 473–487.
Dennison, S., & Thomson, D. M. (2000). Community perceptions of stalking: What are the fundamental concerns? Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 7(2), 159–169.
Dennison, S. M., & Thomson, D. M. (2002). Identifying stalking: The relevance of intent in commonsense reasoning. Law and Human Behavior, 26(5), 543–561.
Dennison, S. M., & Thomson, D. M. (2005). Criticisms or plaudits for stalking laws? What psycholegal research tells us about proscribing stalking. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 11(3), 384–406.
Emerson, R. M., Ferris, K. O., & Gardner, C. B. (1998). On Being Stalked. Social Problems, 45(3), 289–314.
Finkel, N. J. (1995). Commonsense justice: Jurors’ notions of the law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Finkel, N. J. (2000). Commonsense justice and jury instructions: Instructive and reciprocating connections. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), 591–628.
Goode, M. (1995). Stalking: Crime of the nineties? Criminal Law Journal, 19, 21–31.
Haugaard, J., & Seri, L. (2004). Stalking and other forms of intrusive contact among adolescents and young adults from the perspective of the person initiating the intrusive contact. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(1), 37–54.
Hills, A. M., & Taplin, J. L. (1998). Anticipated responses to stalking: Effect of threat and target-stalker relationship. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 5(1), 139–146.
Meloy, J. R., & Gothard, S. (1995). Demographic and clinical comparisons of obsessional followers and offenders with mental disorders. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 152(2), 258–263.
Office of Economic and Statistical Research. (2002). Stalking offences. Queensland Crime Statistics Bulletin (10).
Ogilvie, E. (2000). Stalking: Legislative, policing and prosecution patterns in Australia. Australian Institute of Criminology Research and Public Policy Series, No. 34; Australian Institute of Criminology.
Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (1997). The impact of stalkers on their victims. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 12–17.
Phillips, L., Quirk, R., Rosenfeld, B., & O’Connor, M. (2004). Am I being stalked? Perceptions of stalking among college undergraduates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(1), 73–96 .
Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (2002). The prevalence and nature of stalking in the Australian community. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 114–120.
Sheridan, L., Gillett, R., Davies, G. M., Blaauw, E., & Patel, D. (2003). ‘There’s no smoke without fire’: Are male ex-partners perceived as more ‘entitled’ to stalk than acquaintance or stranger stalkers? British Journal of Psychology, 94, 87–98.
Sinclair, H. C., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Initial courtship behavior and stalking: How should be draw the line? Violence and Victims, 15(1), 23–40.
Stillwell, A. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). The construction of victim and perpetrator memories: Accuracy and distortion in role-based accounts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1157–1172.
Swanwick, R. A. (1996). Stalkees strike back—the stalkers stalked: A review of the first two years of stalking legislation in Queensland. University of Queensland Law Journal, 19(1), 26–44.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (NCJ 169592).
Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N., & Allison, C. J. (2000). Comparing stalking victimisation from legal and victim perspectives. Violence and Victims, 15(1), 7–22.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a Griffith University New Researcher Grant. I would like to thank Storm Cory and Carleen Thompson for their work on the data collection.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix
Queensland: Criminal Code (Stalking) Amendment Act 1999
359B. “Unlawful stalking” is conduct –
-
(a)
intentionally directed at a person (the "stalked person"); and
-
(b)
engaged in on any 1 occasion if the conduct is protracted or on more than 1 occasion: and
-
(c)
consisting of 1 or more acts of the following, or a similar, type –
-
(i)
following, loitering near, watching or approaching a person;
-
(ii)
contacting a person in any way, including, for example, by telephone, mail, fax, e-mail or through use of any technology;
-
(iii)
loitering near, watching, approaching or entering a place where a person lives, works or visits;
-
(iv)
leaving offensive material where it will be found by, given to or brought to the attention of, a person;
-
(v)
giving offensive material to a person, directly or indirectly;
-
(vi)
an intimidating, harassing or threatening act against a person, whether or not involving violence or a threat of violence;
-
(vii)
an act of violence, or threat of violence, against property of, anyone, including the defendant; and
-
(d)
that-
-
(i)
would cause the stalked person apprehension or fear, reasonable arising in all the circumstances, of violence to, or against property of, the stalked person or another person; or
-
(ii)
causes detriment, reasonably arising in all the circumstances, to the stalked person or another person.
What is immaterial for unlawful stalking
359C. (1) For section 359B(a), it is immaterial whether the person doing the unlawful stalking –
-
(a)
intends that the stalked person be aware the conduct is directed at the stalked person; or
-
(b)
has a mistaken belief about the identity of the person at whom the conduct is intentionally directed.
(2) For section 359B(a) and (c), it is immaterial whether the conduct directed at the stalked person consists of conduct carried out in relation to another person or property of another person.
(3) For section 359B(d), it is immaterial whether the conduct throughout the occasion on which the conduct is protracted, or the conduct on each of a number of occasions, consists of the same or different acts.
(4) For section 359B(d), it is immaterial whether the person doing the unlawful stalking intended to cause the apprehension or fear, or the detriment, mentioned in the section.
(5) For section 359B(d)(i), it is immaterial whether the apprehension or fear, or the violence, mentioned in the section is actually caused.
About this article
Cite this article
Dennison, S.M. Interpersonal Relationships and Stalking: Identifying When to Intervene. Law Hum Behav 31, 353–367 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9067-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9067-3