Logan, et al., 2006, p. 268
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.
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).
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.
Gorss, 2012, p. 72
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.
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.
Almost half of the partner-stalking victims experienced barriers regarding bureaucracy, politics, and/or their own lack of knowledge with the CJS.
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.
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 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.
Gross, 2012, p. 101
Research has found that in some cases pursuing a PPO can decrease violence, however, others do continue to experience violent episodes, (Hefner, et al., 2021). Most research has looked at IPV/DV protective orders which has found anywhere between, 23%-79.6% of violations. These reports are generally made following "severe" violence, as enforcement of PPOs is often inconsistent and insufficient, only few result in arrest, having no significant impact on conviction rates (Hefner, et al., 2021, p. 1380). Some victims chose not to pursue PPOs due to limited enforcement, this experience and perception can impact one's "legal consciousness," which is a persons attitude and view of the law (Hefner, et al., 2021).
Hefner, et al., 2021, 1385
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.
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.
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.
Schell and Lanteigne, 2000, p. 154
VINELink.com is the online portal for VINE. VINE can be accessed anytime to provide the most reliable information for custody status changes and criminal case information.
The VINELink Mobile App allows you access vital information from your mobile device. The VINELink App is available for iOS and Android devices and is completely free.
Customer support is available 24/7/365 for to help locating an offender, registering for notifications, or accessing victim services in their area. Over 200 languages are available via live operator support.
Copyright © 2024 Just Stalking - All Rights Reserved.
Just Stalking: Resources, Inc. is a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization (EIN: 93-4264447).
Disclaimer: We are NOT a legal, mental health, medical, victims' advocate provider(s). We are NOT certified educators, financial experts, security specialists, or self-defense experts. While some of our staff may have training, background, or experience in legal, mental health, medical, victims' advocacy, education, financial, security, or self-defense fields pertaining to Maryland, none of our staff is currently, licensed, or certified specialists in the aforementioned fields. WE ARE NOT PROVIDING ADVICE, IN SUCH FIELDS. OUR GOAL IS TO DIRECT VICTIMS TO APPLICABLE PROVIDERS, PROVIDE FEEDBACK BASED ON PERSONAL EXPERIENCES, USING RELEVANT EVIDENCE-BASED RESEARCH & PRACTICES. WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO PROVIDE RESOURCES FOR ALL AFOREMENTIONED TIPS. IF YOU ARE IN DISTRESS PLEASE CALL 911.
Powered by GoDaddy
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.