NCJ Number
151756
Journal
ABA Journal Volume: 80 Dated: (September 1994) Pages: 68-71
Date Published
1994
Length
4 pages
Annotation
This analysis of antistalking laws explains why the initial laws have proven to be to be ineffective and how State legislatures are adopting new measures that are useful to prosecutors but that raise Constitutional issues.
Abstract
Prosecutors say that the past laws are so narrow that they exclude much of the bizarre and obsessive behavior that constitutes stalking. However, defense attorneys and advocates of free speech claim that some laws are so broad that they are unconstitutional and often misused. State legislatures have chosen to amend the laws to respond to prosecutorial concerns. The revised laws generally feature broader definitions of stalking and stiffer penalties. Rather than considering individual acts, the new legal standard emphasizes how a pattern of activity affects the victim. The laws define stalking as behavior that causes its target to feel terrorized, molested, and wounded. Defense attorneys and free-speech advocates argue that the broad antistalking laws could be applied to activities protected by the First Amendment. One way to reconcile disparate interests is to involve both prosecutors and defense attorneys in the redrafting process. One analysis of the new laws concludes that the redrafts may require a third examination to ensure that they do not violate constitutional protections. Photographs