Within three years,[80] all states in the United States followed suit to create the crime of stalking under different names such as criminal harassment or criminal threat. The Drivers` Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) was passed in 1994 in response to numerous cases where a driver`s information was misused for criminal purposes, including the Saldana and Schaeffer-Stalking cases. [82] [83] The DPPA prohibits states from disclosing a driver`s personal data without permission from the State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The term “stalking” refers to behaviour directed against a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of others, or to suffer significant emotional distress. In general, victims of harassment are women from all walks of life. Some try to end a relationship with a man, often a man who has been violent. The persons concerned may be married or divorced or may have been sexual partners. In other cases, the harasser and the victim may know each other by chance or be linked informally or formally. For example, they may have had one or two dates or spoken briefly, but were not sexual partners, or they may be employees or former employees. In a small number of situations, the harasser and the victim do not know each other. Cases involving celebrities and other public figures generally fall into this category. The potentially dangerous consequences and appalling helplessness experienced by victims have led to calls for legislation criminalizing harassment. California enacted the first anti-harassment law in 1990.
Eventually, all 50 states and the District of Columbia passed laws dealing with harassment. Initially, these laws varied widely, containing provisions that rendered the laws virtually unenforceable due to ambiguity and the dual requirement to prove a particular criminal intent and a credible threat. Many states have amended these harassment laws to broaden definitions, refine language, toughen penalties and highlight the suspect`s pattern of activity. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 also included section 4(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which covered “harassment with fear of violence or serious concern or distress.” This has resulted in a crime where one person`s behaviour amounts to harassment, causing either another person to fear (at least twice) that violence will be used against them, or behaviour that seriously alarms or distresses another person, which has a significant impact on their usual daily activities. To be convicted of harassment in most states, the harasser must demonstrate a criminal intent to frighten the victim. Various laws require that the harasser`s behaviour be “intentional”, “targeted”, “intentional” or “conscious”. Many States do not require proof that the defendant intended to provoke fear as long as he intended to commit the act that led to the fear. If, in these States, the victim has a well-founded fear of the alleged offender`s conduct, the intentional element of the offence is fulfilled. Minnesota has a very broad stalkers law that illustrates the variety of situations in which the law is enforced. Under this Act, a person can be convicted of criminal harassment or intent to harm the person, property or rights of others. The Violence Against Women Act of 2005, which amends a U.S. law, 108 Stat.
1902 et seq., defines harassment as:[84] Often, a negotiated solution is found, with the harasser`s lawyer issuing an injunction or protection order. Most courts are prepared to be safer than sad, and this author heard a judge simply say, “If you do not prosecute her, then you should have no problem with me ordering you to stay two thousand feet away from her.” The logic of this type of protection order is obvious. Every Australian state passed laws prohibiting harassment in the 1990s, with Queensland becoming the first state to do so in 1994. Laws vary slightly from state to state, with Queensland`s laws having the broadest scope and South Australia`s laws being the most restrictive. Penalties range from a maximum of 10 years in prison in some states to a fine for the lower severity of the stalking in others. Australia`s anti-harassment laws have a few notable features. Unlike many U.S. jurisdictions, they do not require that the victim felt fear or distress as a result of the behavior, only that a reasonable person would have felt it. In some states, anti-harassment laws are extraterritorial, meaning that a person can be charged with harassment if they or the victim are in the respective state. Most Australian states offer the possibility of an injunction in cases of harassment, the violation of which is punishable as a criminal offence. There is relatively little research on Australian court decisions in harassment cases, although Freckelton (2001) found that in Victoria, most harassers received fines or community orders.
The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not have an independent corpus delicti such as harassment. However, lawyers argue that prosecuting a person in Russia can also be punished with a hefty fine. The victim of harassment only needs to use the sections already included in the code. Therefore, if the persecutor uses threats, he must refer to Article 119 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Threat of death or serious bodily harm”. In this case, the offender is punished with hard labour for up to 480 hours or hard labour for up to 2 years. In addition, the persecutor can expect imprisonment of up to six months or imprisonment (restriction) of up to two years. “Invasion of privacy” (Article 137 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) can also be used in the context of harassment. This crime manifests itself in the illegal collection of information about private life and its dissemination (including in public discourse and the media). For this, a criminal can be fined up to 200,000 rubles, go to forced labor for up to 360 hours, and even be imprisoned for two years.
In addition, persecutors often violate article 138 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, violation of the secrecy of correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraphic and other messages of citizens. The article provides for a penalty ranging from a fine of 80,000 rubles to punitive work for up to one year. [69] Cyberstalking is the use of computers or other electronic technologies to facilitate harassment. In Davis (2001), Lucks identified a distinct category of stalkers who prefer to commit crimes against their victims electronically and online. [31] Among students, Ménard and Pincus found that men who had high scores of sexual abuse and narcissistic vulnerability as children were more likely to become bullies. Of the women who participated in their study, 9% were cyberstalkers, while only 4% were overt stalkers. In addition, male participants showed the opposite, 16% were open stalkers and 11% were cyberstalkers. Both alcohol and physical violence played a role in predicting women`s cyberstalking, and among men, worried attachment “significantly predicted cyberbullying.” [32] The series of events or acts involving criminal harassment may include a mixture of criminal acts and acts that, taken in isolation, could be considered innocent or non-threatening. In general, criminal harassment may include: Or according to Article 245 of the Criminal Code of the People`s Republic of China, anyone who illegally searches the body or home of another person or illegally enters another person`s home shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years or imprisonment. Judges who abuse their powers and commit the crimes referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be severely punished. [53] In addition to Mullen et al., Joseph A.