What to do if you—or a patient—is a victim of stalking

Thus began a pattern of unwanted phone calls and letters left through the mail slot of her parents’ front door and on her car windshield. One letter featured a drawing of 2 tombstones, one with his name and one with hers, with R.I.P. (Rot In Pieces) scrawled below her tombstone. When asked how he thought she might respond to this, J.P. shrugged and explained it was “funny.” He claimed he was “just imitating Eminem,” a well-known “badboy” rapper who has a similar tattoo on his abdomen.

One letter indicated his desire to become a professional baseball player and his belief that if he had her love, he could succeed at this endeavor. He seemed unaffected by her lack of interest in him.

The situation escalated further when J.P. coincidentally showed up at a downtown club on a night when Ms. T. and her boyfriend were there. The boyfriend (the same one that J.P. had criticized Ms. T. for becoming involved with) hit J.P. A fight ensued; both men were thrown out of the club.

Complicating J.P.’s problems was his ongoing substance abuse including marijuana, alcohol, and weekend ecstasy (MDMA, a mixed hallucinogen/amphetaminelike drug). J.P. had also complained to a psychiatrist of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder-like symptoms and was placed on an amphetamine, which he also abused, according to his mother. Finally, the removal of his wisdom teeth necessitated a codeine prescription for pain, which he overused.

J.P. presented to the psychiatric emergency room with full-blown psychosis, about 2 months after he allegedly began stalking Ms. T. He reported paranoid ideations, i.e., communications through the TV and computer, male coworkers reading his mind, and thoughts of killing his “ex-girlfriend” (a misnomer describing Ms. T.).

J.P. was hospitalized and placed on antipsychotic and mood-stabilizing medications, quickly recompensated and was discharged. Diagnostically, he had a myriad of rule-outs at the time and was discharged on mood stabilizing and antipsychotic medications.

Mediation was attempted in an effort to end the stalking, but J.P. appeared “disorganized” and alarmed both Ms. T. and her parents. J.P. then was scheduled for a court trial and underwent a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation. He did not qualify to plead not guilty by reason of insanity as defined by Ohio statute.

J.P. was found guilty of menacing by stalking and was sentenced to a year probation. He was ordered to continue psychiatric treatment and was barred from any contact with the victim. To my knowledge, the stalking has stopped.

What this case illustrates

Stalking is not a new crime; it has been around for centuries.⁶ But what was once romanticized as a persistent and devoted lover’s pursuit is now considered intrusive and a violation of an individual’s basic right to be left alone.⁷ See Box 1 for legal and clinical definitions of stalking.

In the case vignette, Ms. T. made several good choices that are in line with current recommendations for stalking victims. She did:

Box 3

• Inform neighbors and friends and provide them a description of the stalker;
• Screen calls and block calls from his number (Box 2);
• Notify police and file an affidavit against him (Box 2);
• Buy new locks and secure her doors with deadbolts;
• Add exterior and motion-detector lighting;
• Document and record all incidents involving the stalker, and save all unwanted correspondence (e.g., letters) from him.

But Ms. T. also made some poor choices contrary to current recommendations. She did not:

• End all contact and communication with the stalker; instead she tried to be nice (after all, they were old high school friends) and to chat with him superficially. This encouraged his continued stalking behaviors.
• Refuse to attend the proposed mediation process. This illustrates a lack of understanding of stalking. Her attendance unwittingly reinforced the stalker and failed to curb his behaviors.

You must take into consideration the stalker’s typology, which will aid in predicting his or her likely response to legal intervention. Several stalker classification systems have been devised. The one created by Mullen et al (Table 1) is most widely accepted at this time. It is based on: