Stalking: Issues of deterrence “When I was stalking, I was so dedicated to it. Nothing would stop me. It was my focus.”
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-07-2021-0027 |
| Published date | 17 February 2023 |
| Date | 17 February 2023 |
| Pages | 136-153 |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Criminal psychology,Sociology,Sociology of crime & law,Deviant behaviour,Public policy & environmental management,Policing,Criminal justice |
| Author | Rachael Wheatley,Sara Henley,Frank Farnham |
Stalking: Issues of deterrence “When I
was stalking, I was so dedicated to it.
Nothing would stop me. It was my focus”
Rachael Wheatley, Sara Henley and Frank Farnham
Abstract
Purpose –This paperaims to present issues of deterrence related to stalking.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors have combined recent mixed method research findings
and existing general deterrence literature with their practitioner experiences of working with this population,
to provide a novel viewpoint paper intending to influence advancements in knowledge in this area.
Findings –Recent qualitative research investigating the function of stalking in a small sample (see
Wheatley et al., 2020a)noted the participants’ focus on the lack of deterrence. For example,participants
described feeling emotionally stuck in their pursuits, experiencing poor access to help and support,
being ignorant of the potential custodial consequences of their offending and even stating that
imprisonmentprovided a harsh yet necessary momentof reality.
Originality/value –This novel discussion paper reviewsthese findings in relation to both the available
research based on deterrence generally and deterrence related to stalking and the experience of
working with stalkingcases in clinical practice. This paper exploreswhat we know about the motivations
that underliestalking behaviour and how that relates to the effectivenessof deterrence, including the role
of traditionalcriminal justice approaches to thistype of offending.
Keywords Stalking, Deterrence, Desistance, Reoffending, Stalker,Stalking interventions
Paper type Viewpoint
Introduction
Stalking arises from a range of motivations, in the context of varying interpersonal situations,
and underlying psychopathologies. This recognised diversity led to the development of
Mullen et al.’s (1999) motivational typology, intended to classify this heterogenous group
into categories by those three core aspects. Stalkingmotivations and the individual’s mental
state present different risk factor profiles across a range of domains, such as risk of stalking
violence and risk of persistence. In practice, the duration of stalking can vary markedly,and
understandably persistence (even in the absence of violence) is a significant concern for
victims. Whilst some individuals who stalk appear to be able to stop their behaviour
relatively quickly, others persist for a very long time. From a general population survey
sample of stalking victimisation experience, 432 reported experiencing legally definable
stalking of which 55% of cases persisted beyond two weeks (median duration of six
months). The type of prior relationship between the person stalking and the victim is
associated with degree of persistence, with prior acquaintances the most persistent and
strangers the least (McEwan et al., 2009). Having an intimacy seeking or resentful
motivation is associated with greater persistence, as is the presence of psychosis (McEwan
et al.,2009
;James et al., 2009). Whilst some stalking campaigns can lead to physical
violence (McEwan et al., 2016), psychological harm through pervasive and cumulative
victim distress is almost always a consequence(Logan and Walker, 2017).
Rachael Wheatley is based
at the University of Derby,
Derby, UK. Sara Henley is
based at the North London
Forensic Service, London,
UK. Frank Farnham is
based at the North London
Forensic Service, London,
UK and Jill Dando Institute
of Security and Crime
Science, London, UK.
Received 9 July 2021
Revised 31 October 2022
Accepted 16 November 2022
PAGE 136 jJOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY jVOL. 13 NO. 2 2023, pp. 136-153, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2009-3829 DOI 10.1108/JCP-07-2021-0027
Recent qualitative research investigating the function of stalking in a small sample of
stalking cases (Wheatley et al., 2020a) noted the participants’ focus on the lack of
deterrence. For example, participants described feeling emotionally stuck in their pursuits,
experiencing poor access to help and support, being ignorant of the potential custodial
consequences of their offending and even stating that imprisonment provided a harsh yet
necessary moment of reality. This paper reviews these findings in relation to both the
available research base on deterrence generally and deterrence related to stalking and
the experience of working with individuals who stalk in clinical practice. It explores what we
know about the motivations that underlie stalking behaviour and how that relates to the
effectiveness of deterrence, including the role of traditional criminal justice approaches to
this type of offending.
General deterrence literature
As a general summary, deterrence theory posits that the actual practices of the criminal
justice system affect would-be offenders’ decisions by way of the perceptual properties of
punishment. Literature that has explored the general efficacy of deterrence (Pickett et al.,
2018) indicates that primary factors include: the risk of being caught (likelihood, rather than
severity of punishment); that exposure to offending without legal consequences reduces
impact of deterrence; that clear information about offending consequences is impactful;
and that early legal responses to offending may increase the impact of deterrence. There is
little evidence of the specific deterrentimpact of imprisonment being superior to that of non-
custodial sentencing disposals (Doob and Webster, 2003;Nagin et al., 2009). It is thought
that the threat, and not the actual punishment, is the stronger deterrent (Nagin, 2013;
Sherman and Neyroud, 2012). According to Pogarsky and Herman (2019), information
plays a crucial role in deterrence. These authors explain that, if a potential offender’s
perception of risk centres around their likelihood of being caught, then using information to
change perceptions around sanction risk will be a key lever in deterrence; informational
nudges (Pogarsky and Herman, 2019) can keep alive this information in decision-making
scenarios.
In neurological studies, Jacobs and Cherbonneau (2017) concluded that the managing of
nerves can be perceived as a means of managing the link between offending behaviour
and fear of risk. Nerves are the mechanism that manages fear of sanctions; so, the
managing of nerves and nervousness becomes essential to being able to carry out the
criminal act (Cornish and Clarke, 2008;Jacobs and Cherbonneau, 2017). Managing fear
and emotionality related to risk perception makes the offending behaviour feasible. Nerve
management preceding criminalactivity is thought to be both anticipatory and reactive, with
cognitive tactics being used in anticipation of the criminal act to suppress the experience
and expression of nervousness (Jacobs and Cherbonneau, 2017). Such tactics allow for
rehearsal of the crime to anticipate risk and thus plan to minimise its influence on the crime
to be committed and, (this could include self-medication), to calm the nerves. The authors
suggested that cognitive tactics facilitate the offender in planning their crime thoroughly.
Overall, the study supported previous theories around emotional management and
offending (Cherbonneau andCopes, 2006;Gill, 2000;Jacobs and Cherbonneau, 2014).
A systematic review of research findings highlighted that it is not necessarily fear of the
severity of punishment that impactsupon deterrence, but rather perceptions of the certainty
of detection (Pratt et al., 2006). The criminological literature demonstrates that an
individual’s perceptions of the likelihood of detection and punishment are not stable.
Instead, they are consistently shaped by personal and vicarious experiences (Lochner,
2007;Matsueda et al.,2006) and through elements of the crime itself. Those individuals who
have committed a large number of crimes and enjoyed relatively few arrests had drastically
different perceptions of future risk of arrest from those with a similar offending history but
who had experienced more arrests (Matsueda et al., 2006). These perceptions are also
VOL. 13 NO. 2 2023 jJOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY jPAGE 137
To continue reading
Request your trial