NCJ Number
191931
Journal
Domestic Violence Report Volume: 7 Issue: 1 Dated: October/November 2001 Pages: 3-5
Editor(s)
Joan Zorza
Date Published
2001
Length
3 pages
Annotation
This article examines several controversies concerning the classification of stalkers and whether treatment works for certain types of stalkers.
Abstract
One of the biggest controversies among those studying and treating stalkers is how to classify them. One question that should be asked is whether it makes sense for stalkers to be classified based largely on their relationship to their victims, or based on dangerousness and treatment type, as more of those conducting long-term treatment now propose. Classification based on treatment raises the even more controversial issue of whether any treatments work with stalkers, and if so, what type of stalkers. Consistent with the early classification system, stalkers differ based on what, if any prior relationship they had with their targets. Similarly, the stalker’s methods vary, and some have begun focusing on methodology to classify them. Classifications include stalkers as random, celebrity, single agenda, casual acquaintance, domestic, public figure, electronic and cyberstalker, domestic relational, work relational, electronic, first-time encounter, and random chance encounter. Yet many if not most use different tactics. It is not clear whether stalkers target over their lifetimes people in more than one type of relationship category. Classifying stalkers based on their actual relationships with targets is not helpful if the stalkers change target categories over time or stalk in more than one relational category simultaneously. Classifying stalkers based on their relationship to their victims is the most common system in the United States, where the criminalization of stalking began. Stranger stalking is often encompassed by erotomania or “de Clerambault syndrome,” a psychiatric diagnosis for delusional beliefs by the stalker that someone, typically a complete stranger, loves him or her. Geberth (1992) divided stalkers based on whether they are psychopathic or psychotic. There are now many classification schemes currently in use. Some of these are showing promise for improving case management, offender treatment, and victim safety. One of the things that most stalking experts agree is that further contact with victims only encourages stalkers. Yet, several forces are now working to jeopardize victim safety by encouraging or even forcing just such encounters. The most dangerous examples occur in former partner cases. Yet any court contact necessitates further contact. In cases where a male stalker has a child in common with the former partner, most courts still regard him as entitled to visitation with his child. This only encourages the father’s stalking efforts, even when supervision is meaningfully supervised. Even worse, many courts are influenced by a popular science theory that asserts that children always love their fathers unless their mothers alienate them. There is no data to support the phenomenon called parental alienation syndrome, in which mothers are blamed for interfering with their children’s attachment to their fathers. Even when the parties do not have children together or are not former intimates, the court often subjects the target to further contact. But more alarming is a new trend called restorative justice, which assumes that most criminals have some empathy and can be reached by hearing the harm they produced and by having to make it up to their victims. Yet, this only feeds the fantasies of the stalker. The most difficult questions, however, are whether any treatments work with stalkers, and why stalkers are tracked into the mental health system, but not treated within that system, as are untreatable sex offenders. Many therapists acknowledge how unsuccessful treatment has been with victims, yet most of them urge treatment. Although there seems to be a consensus that stalkers do have significant mental health problems, the fact that treatment seldom curbs the stalkers suggests that there is no idea on how to treat them. One problem is that stalking requires long-term treatment, something not possible under the short periods that courts typically sentence stalkers. Society needs to better protect victims of stalkers. Above all, family courts must come to understand that intimate partner stalkers should not have any contact with former partners, should be prevented from misusing the legal system, and should have no contact with their children.