Stalker Profiles With and Without Protective Orders: Reoffending or Criminal Justice Processing?

• NCJ Number: 198410
• Journal: Violence and Victims Volume: 17 Issue: 5 Dated: October 2002 Pages: 541-553
• Author(s): T. K. Logan; Amy Nigoff; Robert Walker; Carol Jordon
• Date Published: October 2002
• Length: 13 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The objective of this study was to increase knowledge of stalker characteristics by examining the association between a protective-order history and the court's processing of subsequent stalking, as well as patterns of reoffending.

Abstract

The study involved a sample of 346 males who had been charged with stalking in one State in 1999. In the State in which the subjects were charged, stalking was statutorily defined as engaging in an intentional course of conduct that was directed at a specific person or persons; seriously alarms, annoys, intimidates, or harasses the person or persons; and serves no legitimate purpose. The subjects were placed in one of three groups: males without protective orders, males with one prior protective order, and males with two or more prior protective orders. Almost two-thirds of the stalkers had a protective order against them at some point over the study period, suggesting that stalking was associated with intimate partner violence. Study results also revealed a linear trend with many of the criminal-justice-involvement variables and protective-order history prior to 1999. Those charged with first-degree stalking were more likely to be found guilty initially, and approximately one-third of all three study groups had the initial felony stalking charge amended. Of those charged with second-degree stalking, only 7 percent of the group with two or more protective orders were initially found guilty, which was significantly less than the other two groups. When all the amendment dispositions were considered, there were no significant differences by group in guilty and dismissed dispositions for the index stalking charge. Further, consistent with previous criminal justice involvement, the group with two or more protective orders was more likely to have subsequent felony charges than the other two groups. Study findings suggest the need for a more determined public policy toward the use of criminal-justice sanctions for stalking. 4 tables and 36 references