Criminal Justice System
Police
Logan, et al. (2006) reported that while stalking victims reports to the police vary, their interactions do as well. Their study with partner-victims found that 47% reported at least one positive police interaction; however, 87% reported at least one negative one. Reasons ranging from not helpful, to blaming, to direct negative consequences. Ineffectual responses were ascribed to the stalker not being present, being advised to pursue other CJS avenues, and not reporting a physical injury.
Peace & Protective Orders (PPOs)
Logan, et al. (2006) found 55% of their partner-stalking victims had protective orders at some point. However, only 32% of these victims had learned about PPOs through the police, 24% had learned of them through DV shelters, 18% learned of them through friends or relatives, 12% learned of them through social workers or other professionals, 3% learned of them through work 12% could not recall where they had learned about them (Logan, et al., 2006). Aproximately half of those who obtained the order found the process easy, and the order effective. The other half, reported that the behavior did not change, and the stalker was never held to account on their violations with the judges.
Stalkers can attempt to obtain protective orders on their victims, this is referred to as a "mutual protective order." The frequency that this occurs is unknown. When this happens it can create another legal complexity, in that the stalker can claim that when they are violating the order, in fact the victim caused the violation (Logan, et al., 2006).
Criminal charges
Stalkers are often charged with criminal offenses related to stalking, such as harassment, menacing, threatening, vandalism, trespassing, breaking and entering, robbery, disorderly conduct, intimidation, and assault (Logan, et al. 2006). In Maryland there are a number of charges that can be levied against a stalker. This includes violating their PPO as well as stalking. Logan, et al. (2006) found that 76% of the partner-stalking victims in their study had filed a violation of the PPO. Most often, stalking charges are dismissed.
Deborah was charged with disorderly conduct[....] During the next 12 months, Betty filed seven lawsuits against Deborah and four against Dave[....][Betty] also continued to besiege Dave with convoluted letters [...]"I have never loved anyone the way I love you[...]"
Gorss, 2012, p. 72
Barriers to the CJS
Affordability
Logan, et al. (2006) found that 15% of their partner-stalking victims had difficulty covering the cost of lawyers, filings, and fees; such as process servers. However, this is not just a problem in DV cases as Gross (2012) stalking can spill over into criminal and civil cases for the victim as well.
Availability
Partner stalking victims experienced barriers in receiving support from the CJS in terms of response times.
They also experienced barriers regarding transportation to court appearances.
Accessibility
Accessibility
Almost half of the partner-stalking victims experienced barriers regarding bureaucracy, politics, and/or their own lack of knowledge with the CJS.
Acceptability
Acceptability
Accessibility
Logan et al. (2006) found that almost all the partner-stalking victims mentioned at least one barrier in this category. The majority of the women's position was that the system is ineffectual and incapable to properly handle the stalking. Additionally, there is a sense of fear that they won't be believed or worse, could be blamed or ignored.
Consequence
Acceptability
Other Barriers
There are again, concerns of consequences such as losing custody, being arrested. Some consequences are less "serious," but could have other types of ramifications, such as embarrassment.
Other Barriers
Acceptability
Other Barriers
Other victims may not believe their situation is serious enough to warrant intervention. While others may be experiencing other barriers such as a lack of resources or service connections.
They told me the classic line: 'until he does something more, like assault you, there's nothing we can do.'
Gross, 2012, p. 101
[...] what the officer said is "its just a useless piece of paper because he was never served" and nothing was ever done to enforce him being served.
Hefner, et al., 2021, 1385
Barriers
Nature of Contact & Threshold for Reporting
Nature of Contact & Threshold for Reporting
Nature of Contact & Threshold for Reporting
PPOs don't just cover physical proximity. Telephone, email, social media is all a form of contact and should be reported. If the stalker is incarcerated, hospitalized, or otherwise institutionalized, these are all forms of contact. Even if they do not speak (such as breathing, or liking a post). If they use proxy contact, or contact a secondary-victim. "Ignoring" calls, emails or social media does is still a violation. Even if it is not a threat.
Contact about topics not allowed, i.e., if you have to share custody or remove property, that is not a time to discuss other topics, this is a violation.
Institutional Barriers
Nature of Contact & Threshold for Reporting
Nature of Contact & Threshold for Reporting
PPOs may not be served in a timely manner, or there may be jurisdictional barriers,
Some victims may not be aware of the process of reporting.
Some officers may not be aware of how to address PPO violations.
The court may not impose sanctions for the violations.
Imbalance of power
Nature of Contact & Threshold for Reporting
Imbalance of power
Victims, particularly female, describe how violators are continually given the benefit of the doubt within the legal system, as well as ample opportunity to manipulate. Therefore, without physical evidence they did not report PPO violations because they did not have 'proof.' Therefore, blocked calls were harder, if not impossible to report.
