OLD PAPER #1

So I thought that I might upload some of my older papers- for instance, things I wrote during my masters program- and share them. I recently got into a conversation with some friends about Stalkers which resulted in rereading a paper I wrote for my Evaluation and Treatment of the Adult Offender (fall 2007) class. One of the things we had to do was research on a type of offender. I chose stalkers. But I remember some of my classmates also researched female arsonists, rapists, and drug traffickers. It was a very interesting set of presentations. I thought I would start with this paper and we’ll see what sort of response it gets. *************************************************************

Stalkers: a Brief Overview

When the average person hears the terms “stalker” or “stalking”, they generally think of someone who inappropriately pursues a celebrity. This is not an incorrect assumption, but there is more than that to stalking and to who is a stalker. This paper intends to provide a brief glimpse into the meaning of these terms in order to broaden the knowledge base of its readers.

The legal definition of stalking varies from state to state, therefore it is important to be knowledgeable of the laws in your own state, but typically the definition can be generalized as “willful, malicious, and repeated following and harassing of another person that threatens his or her safety” (Meloy, 2003, p. 659), “in a course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for (his or her) safety, and that the stalker intended and did, in fact, place the victim in such fear” (Douglas, 1998, p. 274). An important thing to remember is that “stalking begins before the legal definition kicks in… You can be harassing and you can be threatening before your actions reach the legal definition” (Douglas, 1998, p. 280). In many instances, a stalker’s behavior starts with letters or gifts given to the victim, such innocuous items that the victim takes some time before recognizing that the behavior is not “normal”. Sadly, when the victim starts to see the gifts as odd and makes complaints, most often they are told something approximating “you should be flattered by the attention” (Douglas, 1998). But why should someone be flattered by attention they neither asked for nor appreciate? True, a little attention can do make someone feel special, but there is a line that stalkers cross, and at that point, the victim no longer feels “special”, they can feel trapped. “The key is that the victim has no real relationship with the stalker; they could be casual acquaintances or not have met at all” (Douglas, 1998, p. 282). This statement makes it clear that a stalker can be the “ex-“ of the victim, a work mate, or even someone who only sees the victim in a movie. The victim may know the stalker intimately, as is the case when stalking is a part of domestic violence, or the victim may be a person with a high profile, i.e. a celebrity or politician. Stalking is important to understand because it can psychologically damage the victim in such a way that they may not be able to participate in a healthy relationship in the future, and because it places the victim in potentially risky situations (Mullen, 2003).

It is useful to understand is the different classifications given to stalkers. There are many; different classifications are given by the different states, also many clinicians see stalkers differently and therefore rank their behaviors into different classifications. Gavin de Becker, as noted in Douglas’ Obsession, categorizes celebrity stalkers into four categories based on their motivations. His “attachment seeker” stalker is motivated by a desire to form an attachment with their victims. “Identity seekers” are looking to siphon fame off of their victim and gain it for themselves. Taking the “attachment seeker” behavior one step further, the “rejection based” stalker perceives his victim to have rejected his attention and may be looking for revenge and may use more persistent (and possibly violent) methods to convince the victim to change their mind. De Becker additionally lists the “delusion based” stalker as believing a force (possibly God) has sent them on a mission (1998, p.284). Douglas’ work also notes the categories laid out by Park Dietz. In particular, Dietz refers to “love-obsession” stalkers as a person who is socially inadequate and unable to form appropriate relationships (1998, p. 284). Someone who lives in a fantasy, although they might not be delusional, as their belief is based on a nugget of acceptance he perceived as the start of a relationship. A waitress could smile at a customer when refilling his coffee cup, only to become the object of his obsession; or an actress, as a character in a movie, may say a line that the stalker perceives to be directed to himself, and he will develop a relationship- in his head- with the actress (or possibly the character, which makes the case even more difficult). He may see the actress as the character and perceive her behavior as wrong and inappropriate as she lives her real life.

Expanding on the categories already discussed, Mullen presents his five categories- the rejected stalker, the intimacy-seeking stalker, the incompetent suitors, the resentful stalker, and the predatory stalker (Mullen, 2003). The “rejected stalker” is characterized by a breakdown or end of a relationship, typically sexual or emotional, within which the stalker had invested himself. The “intimacy-seeking stalker” is similar to de Becker’s “attachment seeker” in that they seek the companionship and love of their victim. They generally feel themselves to be in love with the victim and believe that they can cause the victim to see them as their “Mr. Right”. The “incompetent suitor” is characterized by their social awkwardness and inadequacy. They focus their attentions on their victim and approach them in a manner which is sure to lead to immediate rejection because they do not know appropriate courtship methods. They may also have a sense of entitlement and will ignore the negative responses their courtship methods receive. They are very persistent in their pursuit of their victim. The “resentful stalker” is motivated by a perceived slight or grievance and attempts to frighten or distress their victim. These stalkers usually are acquainted with their victims, either as friends, co-workers, or as someone with whom they have dealt repeatedly (i.e. an insurance agent or a doctor). Finally, Mullen’s “predatory stalker” is someone who uses the information they get by stalking their victim to further them to a final end- usually a violent and assaultive fantasy. Fortunately, many predatory stalkers may be satisfied by the act of stalking and gaining the information and may not actually achieve the ultimate end- the act of aggression against the victim.

Stalking is considered to be an extreme disorder related to attachment (Meloy, Violent Attachments, 1992). Further research need to be conducted to determine exactly what attachment styles would predict stalking as a future behavior. One study conducted by Emma Tonin in 2004 determined that the participants of the study who were part of the “stalker” group demonstrated insecure attachment style and were overprotected by their fathers. Tonin concluded that it was possible that the varied attachment styles of the future stalkers led to their inadequate or socially awkward states. As seen in the categories of stalker types, attachment seems to play a huge part in the development of stalking tendencies (Tonin, 2004).

Violence and stalking frequently go hand in hand. However, the “unpredictability and the individuality of each case means that every one must be taken seriously” (Douglas, 1998, p. 298). Similar to sex offenses, many cases of stalking are not reported; one reason for this is that many “victims are either too scared to report the crime or unsure there are laws to help them” (Douglas, 1998, p. 276). The predominant type of stalker is a variation of de Becker’s “attachment seeker” or Mullen’s “rejected stalker”, someone who seeks to form an attachment with another or who wants to reignite an ended relationship, or even to trap their partner in order to control them. A lot of domestically violent stalking occurs here. “Stalking can be conceptualized as a method of psychological and emotional abuse within a domestically violent relationship” (Mechanic, Weaver, & Resick, 2000).

Much of the data related to violence during the stalking of a private person (following a known prior relationship for example) “describes assaults without a weapon that do not result in serious physical injury” (Meloy, 2003). In contrast, when the victim is a public figure (i.e. a celebrity or politician) violence is “planned, purposeful, carried out [in] an extended period of weeks or months, and done in the absence of an imminent threat” (Meloy, 2003). Bringing psychology into it- most stalkers with public figures as victims, have a diagnosable psychosis; stalkers of private persons, do not generally have diagnosable psychoses (Meloy, 2003).

One reason stalkers become violent is that as a whole, they are a very narcissistic group. They do not handle rejection well and probably react to it be striking out at the rejecter (Meloy, 2003). Due to their obsessions with their victims, many stalkers meet criteria for obsessive compulsive personality traits. “Many obsessive personality types [do not] lose interest, and they pose an ever-growing threat to the objects of their obsessions. Some victims have been stalked by the same offender for decades” (Douglas, 1998, p. 279). “Stalkers reactions to their victims’ seeking help from the authorities can be unpredictable” (Douglas, 1998, p. 302). As with many other offenses there are variables that can be used to predict violence with stalkers. Meloy lists five- prior sexual intimacy; drug or alcohol abuse; history of criminality; threats; and absence of major mental disorder (2003).

“Stalkers really do run the gamut from the clinically psychotic to otherwise fully functioning, successful, and well-respected members of our communities” (Douglas, 1998, p. 281). It is because of this fact, and because there is no simple profile of a stalker, that is so important to fully examine any and all possible stalking situations.

References

Douglas, J. O. (1998). Obsession. New York, New York, USA: Pocket Books.

Mechanic, M., Weaver, T., & Resick, P. (2000). Intimate partner violence and stalking behavior: explorations of patterns and correlates in a sample of acutely battered women. Violence Vict. , 15, 55-72.

Meloy, J. R. (1992). Violent Attachments. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc.

Meloy, J. R. (2003). When stalkers become violent: the threat to public figures and private lives. Psychiatric Annals , 33 (10), 658-665.

Mullen, P. E. (2003). Multiple classifications of stalkers and stalking behavior available to clinicians. Psychiatric Annals , 33 (10), 650-656.

Tonin, E. (2004). The attachment styles of stalkers. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology , 15 (4), 584-590.

~ by elizabeth ann on May 1, 2010.