Home   T.K. Wolf     Origin   Services   Cranial   Electrical   Stimulation   Stalking     Initiative   Staff/Board of     Directors   Events   Sweat Lodge/     Medicine    Wheel   In the News   Recommended     Reading   Tobacco Use   Search   Links

Stalking Research: Ethical and Legal Issues Ann N. Dapice, Ph.D. ABSTRACT More than one million women and nearly 400,000 men are stalked in the US every year. American Indian women are more likely to be stalked than any other group (17%). Thirteen percent of campus students are stalked. Victims are not limited to any gender, race, religion, or status. It is a criminal offense, yet few stalkers are ever arrested or prosecuted. They are usually older, more intelligent, have higher levels of education, and are engaged in higher status jobs than other criminals. They excel in planning, scheming and subtlety, using varied means and electronic technology to expand their power. They enlist others to assist them in their crimes. The most violent of criminals, 25-35% of stalkers commit violence. Compared to other crimes, few justice resources are spent on the problem. Physiology explains well the responses of victims to stalking whether continuing acute or post traumatic stress. Multiple sciences show the relationship of child abuse, neglect, and poor role modeling to crime. Denial is well known to cause people to look the other way when faced with horrible events—whether parental molestation, stalking, or genocide. As a new science, research is needed: 1) on what happens in the brains of stalkers, 2) measurement of its impact on children, families, business and the community, and 3) what the barriers are to deterrence and prosecution. Ethical theory teaches us we must do good—the results must be good, not just that we want or intend to do good. We ought: 1) not to inflict evil or harm, 2) to prevent and remove evil or harm, and 3) to do or promote good. There is much work ahead. INTRODUCTION “..Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it, let’s do it, let’s fall in love…” Cole Porter “They say that falling in love is wonderful, it’s wonderful, so they say. They say that (dopamine highs are) wonderful, wonderful…” Irving Berlin And yes, you are in the right place and this is the conference on stalking and now that you’re fully awake from a little Cole Porter and Irving Berlin and I have your attention, I’ll tell you that we actually will be talking about the recent brain research on stalkers and romantic love and dopamine and other brain chemicals. We’ll also talk about the brain chemicals and what happens to the minds, hearts, bodies and spirits of the victims—and we are all victims as I think you’ll come to see. I start with lines from songs because now every time you hear a romantic song, long after you’ve forgotten the facts, statistics and theories learned here, you’ll be reminded that as wonderful as romance feels and often is, as much as it is promoted by our culture, things can also go seriously awry. I’ll present academic theories and scientific research, but we’ll be using a number of modalities to teach in the next two days—including song, poetry, story, art, and even ceremony—as required by different learning styles. Our conference is in a community college and we need to remember that people learn in different ways. It occurs to me that given the topics of sex and violence in this presentation, we could be “R” rated! A major ethical goal of our conference is “omni science”—also pronounced omniscience, which means all science, all disciplines, all knowledge applied to a problem—in this case the problem is stalking. As a longtime teacher I know that some of you will follow along as I talk, but others will need to know where I am and where I’m going in the presentation. So let me tell you that I will begin with some brief understandings related to ethics, to be covered in more depth tomorrow with practical situations and case studies in the ethics break-out group. From there I will move to the cutting edge knowledge on stalking and the most recent research. And finally I will summarize the research that badly needs to be done for us to move ahead in helping both stalkers and victims. Along the way I will weave through ethical and legal questions for your consideration. And, in addition to the summaries of stalking research in your packet, this and other articles will be found on line at our website after the conference. I’ve drawn from the edited works of forensic psychologist J. Reid Meloy from 1998 and 2006 for most of the presentation because it is comprehensive and is aligned with other studies that exist. I spoke to him before the conference and we made arrangements to have copies of his books here for you to purchase should you choose. Applying Ethics to Stalking Free will and determinism. For society, as well as individuals, questions of free will and determinism are not simple or frivolous. They have major implications for everyday life as well as for large scale social policy. If we believe for example, that aggression is genetic and thus determined, we will respond differently than if we believe that a person has chosen to behave badly. But either argument can have a variety of responses. In one case, it may be decided that the aggression is genetic and people with those genetic characteristics should not have children. This decision would be similar to deciding that people who carry genes for severe physical disease should not be allowed to bear children. Such decisions, although based on determinism, are very different responses than those that view people simply as victims of genetic determination. On the other hand, if we believe the aggressive behavior is a choice, then we hold aggressive people responsible for their actions in some way, either through incarceration or other compensatory action. Increasing numbers of conditions are being classified as genetic and/or physiological. Conditions once thought to be bad behavior are now termed disease. Decisions about responsibility–and thus societal policy–are changing accordingly. In the field of mental illness, we already have questions about whether people have a right to make "free choice" decisions to refuse medications that make their behaviors more “socially acceptable” when such medications often cause uncomfortable side effects. Does someone who is mentally ill have the ability to make such a choice if that is part of the nature of the "illness?" Freedom and responsibility are therefore issues that are at the heart of ethics. They are also at the heart of how we respond to stalkers and the victims of stalking. For this reason, we need better science on the origin of the problem and thus the best response. Professional ethic. The professional ethic is the deontological understanding that people are never to be treated as a means to an end, but as an end in and of themselves. Examples are various forms of the “Golden Rule” which exist across time and cultures—or what is called the philosophical “kissing cousin” of the Golden Rule, the Kant Imperative. When a person has dealings in business, there is seldom an assumption that the business is there just for the sake of the customer. The business expects to make money. In the professions, whether physician, priest, attorney, professor, etc., the tradition has been that the client or patient can expect that the service or treatment provided will be for the sake of the client and not the professional. The frequent vulnerability of clients' situations, especially in relationship to the power of the professional's status and extensive knowledge, requires a special level of trust and confidentiality, and an assumption by clients that they will not be taken advantage of. When patients go to physicians due to illness, for example, it is important that they know that their physicians will determine the medication or treatment or surgery that is best for them and not one that their physicians happen to use based on their own convenience or benefit. Similar conditions apply to all the professions. It is the interest of the client that is the focus, not that of the professional, and such concerns should be reflected in professional codes of ethical conduct. This seems obvious. But we’ll consider the ramifications of this in professional practice and social and legal services further. Rawls’ Distributive Justice. There are three modern ethical theories. Rawls’ Distributive Justice has two principles: 1) The first principle is that each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with the liberty of others. What does this mean then regarding stalkers and their victims? All too often, the stalkers go free and the victims are left to run, move, or hide. Or, we place female victims and children in shelters while the perpetrator goes free. 2) The second principle is that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both expected to be to the advantage of all and attached to positions and offices open to all (Albert, EM, et al, 1988). What does this mean again in relationship to professional and legal responses to stalkers and victims? How are inequalities arranged in the situation of stalking? Frankena’s Theory of Obligation. Frankena’s Theory of Obligation teaches us that we must do good—the results must be good, not just that we want or intend to do good. We ought 1) not to inflict evil or harm, 2) we ought to prevent and remove evil or harm, and 3) we ought to do or promote good (Albert, 1988). These are important considerations regarding evaluation of what we in our organizations, agencies, governments and community are actually doing when it comes to stalkers and their victims. Are we accomplishing good and how do we measure it? Agencies too often count how many they have served but don’t evaluate the impact of the service. In the social sciences we know far more about the prevention of harm and removing it than is actually acted on. How do we promote good? These are all policy questions that can be measured and should be part of all monies and grants given to service providers—private or public. Most often they are not. We casually talk about “best practices” now at professional conferences but we too often don’t demonstrate how and why they are best and what they have accomplished. Firth’s Ideal Observer Theory. Firth’s Ideal Observer Theory has five characteristics of moral decision making (Firth 1970): The first, Disinterestedness or dispassionateness, means impartiality, not that one “doesn’t care.” It means that one has no egocentric or ethnocentric interests at stake. The second, Omniscience, means obtaining all the information one can about a situation. The third, Omniprecipience, means seeing implications and consequences of actions as if one is experiencing them oneself. The fourth, Consistency, means reacting in the same manner to the same given act. And the fifth, Normality, means that we are not sick, hungry, tired, cold, overly stressed, etc. when making a moral decision. This has major implications in jobs and professions where many errors occur due to regressive conditions. It is also a factor in much family and violent crime. With regard to the first characteristic, being disinterested, it is easy to assume because we are professionals that we are, of course, not operating out of self or group interest. That often requires further examination. I said already that a goal of this conference is omniscience, not that we will leave omniscient, but that we will have attempted to bring all possible information and research to the attention of the participants so that they can respond better to the problem. The omniprecipient characteristic is often difficult for professionals in dealing with clients. Who wants to accept consequences of actions as if one were experiencing them themselves? Here is where much burnout occurs and we have few resources to help professionals with the impact of taking on the role of the suffering other. And often, in misplaced attempts to not get too close to the client, we use professional distancing techniques that are both well taught and well learned to protect ourselves from the often painful reality presented to us. How do we manage our own emotions at the same time we use compassion in serving our clients? Another challenge is that we too often have difficulty understanding experiences until they happen to us whether it’s losing a home to a tornado, cancer, or loss of a child. So we are continuously challenged on this point. The consistency question arises especially in how we treat people with differing status and power. Stalking behaviors are about abuse of power and victims are too often rendered powerless—even more so in relationship to those who hold power in the community. Do we treat people differently if they are in powerful or moneyed positions? This is especially important to examine because stalkers are above average in intelligence, older and more educated than the average person, holding positions of higher status and power. They are capable of convincing people in power to give them assistance. Too often, even mental health professionals and legal authorities have difficulty believing that such a person could be committing a crime—or, may know that they are committing the crime but are afraid to confront them because of their power. As professionals and humans we know that sometimes we are too tired or sick or overly stressed to make an ethical decision or help a client make a decision. Dealing with the victims of stalking who are appropriately fearful, desperate, and panicky is especially challenging and draining. With stalking victims, it may be too easy for the professional to decide that what the victims report seems too bizarre and cannot be true (Meloy, 1998, p. 133). And this happens all too often. Each of these theories shows that practicing in a professionally ethical way is not as simple as following a set of rules set out by one’s profession. These ethical theories do however provide practical ethical guidelines, what I once taught students as “desk or refrigerator door” reminders of what being an ethical person is all about. And these principles are not limited to professionals. Most of us were taught the Golden Rule as a standard. These modern ethical guidelines help us to do the Golden Rule better—to do unto others as we’d have them do unto us, not—and let me repeat this, not as we have too often been done unto! As we learn more about the science of any problem we are challenged to develop better responses through treatment, policies and laws to meet our ethical obligations better. Stalking Research At T. K. Wolf we have found ourselves involved in research related to once adaptive mechanisms that are no longer adaptive or have gone awry. These have included the well known fight/flight response that when drawn on continuously becomes destructive of cells in the brain and body alike. We will come back to this later because it’s related to stalking as well. The other well known response is related to the so-called “thrifty gene” once adaptive in times of famine, now related to our high levels of obesity, Type II Diabetes and cardiovascular problems. Both of these mechanisms are also related to mental health and addiction issues. When we began our research on stalking, knowing that we’d learned much from brain imaging in other areas of mental health, we knew that we needed brain imaging of stalkers so began looking for such research. In doing so, unexpectedly, we’ve come to a third such adaptation response. Each of these adaptive mechanisms has in the past been critical the survival of human beings but may no longer be so. They also relate very specifically to the ethical questions I spoke of earlier related to free will and determinism. After reviewing the facts of stalking, summarized in your packet, I will turn to this very recent research. And yes, we will learn more about the chemicals of falling in love. As an American Indian non-profit organization, T. K. Wolf began seeing the necessity of responding better to stalking victims a number of years ago. A random survey of 16,000 adult men and women found that more than one million women and nearly 400,000 men are stalked in the US every year. Fifty-nine per cent of women and 30 per cent of men were stalked by present or former sexual intimates (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1997). Fifteen to twenty per cent of stalkers are women (Meloy, 2006, p. 307). American Indian women are more likely to be stalked by non-Indians than any other group (17%)—that’s one out of every six, compared to white women (8.2%), African-American women (6.5%) and Asian/Pacific women (4.5%). And for every designated victim there are children, siblings, parents, grandparents, neighbors, friends, co-workers, and employers who are negatively affected as well. Stalking is most often viewed by the public as a crime affecting domestic violence victims or celebrities. However, people from all walks of life are stalked. Campus students have the second highest group level of stalking (13%)—one out of every seven to eight on a campus like the one we sit on today (Stalking Resource Center –National Center for Victims of Crime (www.ncvc.org/src). Because affordable electronics are everywhere, the crime has become easy to do and not as simple and obvious as some crimes to prove. Bosses, employees, counselors, clients, faculty, students, public figures—all of us become susceptible to danger. Now let’s do a little experiment: Count off 1 to 6. // Now every 6th person stand up. // Now every other one of you (half) of you sit down and leave the others standing so that one out of 12 of you are standing. Now 2 people next to those standing stand up to represent parents, then two more stand to represent siblings, then how about 2 more of you stand up to represent grandparents, now two more to represent neighbors, now two more to represent friends, now the rest stand up to represent employees, employers and tax payers. We all become victims. For those who were one in 6 there were even fewer to stand up with you. While behaviors may differ, and researchers use different terms such as erotomania, love obsessing and simple obsessing, the common denominator is a real, desired, or perceived relationship by the stalker with a victim. The advice given to victims too often has been the same as for domestic violence where there is overt physical violence. The confusion between domestic violence or battering and stalking has dangerous consequences. Stalkers excel in planning, scheming and subtlety. They use mind games, striving to make the victims feel helpless and as if they are “losing their minds.” They let the victim know through shifting strategies that they can find the victim anywhere. Stalking victims often report such bizarre behaviors that they have trouble convincing others of what is happening (Meloy, 1998, p. 133)—including the professionals who are formally assigned and ethically obligated to respond to them. Stalking victims tend to be older than the general crime victim population, have relatively higher education and are more likely to be professionals. Stalkers are on average older as well. They have higher levels of education compared to other criminal offenders and are often engaged in professional work. One of the most consistent factors throughout research, for male and female stalkers as well, is that stalkers are measurably more intelligent than other criminals, accounting for their resourceful and manipulative skills (Meloy, 2006, pp. 56, 164, 191, 200, 204). The frequency of violence among stalkers towards their victims averages 25-35 per cent. This is a high rate of violence compared to other criminally violent groups and the risk of homicide for stalking victims is more than 200 times that of nonstalked persons living in the US. (Meloy, 2006, p. 172). Two of the most surprising findings for researchers have been the low incidence of antisocial personality disorder and the high incidence of physical violence among stalkers (Meloy, 2006, p. 49). What differentiates stalkers from others is their aggression and pathological narcissism involving denial, splitting, initial idealization, eventual devaluation, and projection. Overt paranoia is likely to be directed at any third parties perceived as standing in the way of the object (Meloy, 2006, p. 87). In one study, twenty-two per cent of perpetrators had prior victims and but most often it is not even known if there has been a history of such behavior (Meloy, 2006, p. 82). Stalking, motivated primarily by a personality disorder and fueled by abandonment rage, will usually show a poor response to mental health interventions (Meloy, 2006, p. 114). For males the personality disorder is most often narcissism. For females it is borderline personality (Meloy, 2006, p. 354). One of the more recent phenomena to be reported is the stalking of younger people on college campuses (Romans 1996, p. 200, Fremouw et al, 1997). Reid Meloy relates this to the fact that better than average intelligence also occurs on campuses (2006, p. 200). An even younger version just now coming to light and not yet in published research is stalking which is happening on K-12 school grounds as well—where children are using cell phones and text messaging to stalk other children. The growing technology is allowing stalking possibilities not dreamed of before in the long history of stalking. In grade school stalking, cell phones, often given by parents to children for their safety, are being used up to 40 to 60 times a day to stalk classmates. Reports are that some of the students doing the stalking earn high grades and school officials are reticent to take action against some of their best students and have not yet developed policies to address these problems. Stalkers in general use a variety of means to stalk: phone calls (landline and cell), home surveillance, following physically, driving by the home, appearing at the workplace, sending letters and emails, spreading gossip to family, friends and coworkers, “gas lighting” (an old movie term which means trying to make victims think they are “losing their minds”), damaging property, threatening to harm others, breaking and entering, sending unwanted gifts, physically and sexually assaulting victims, injuring and killing pets, kidnapping, and arson (Meloy, 1998). They wiretap, they attach tracking devices to cars, computers and phones, and engage in systematic mail theft. Through cell phones and the inter-net, they break into financial accounts and records, they cause their victims to lose their jobs, and on and on. Even if they are not physically violent or do not commit homicide, they accomplish great harm. It is now simple and relatively inexpensive to obtain many kinds of information helpful to the stalker. Stalkers can obtain almost any personal data needed from the inter-net—often for a small fee. What most people don’t know is that while their land line phone directory has a warning that wiretapping and harassment by phone are federal crimes, the same federal laws do not apply to cell phones—a difference in wire lines vs. radio waves. Cell phone companies refuse to give the identity of an individual making calls or breaking into cell phone accounts unless courts issue subpoenas—even if there is a protective order in place. Courts generally won’t issue subpoenas until there is proof from the cell phone company that the cell phone number was obtained illegally. This makes a “Catch-22” situation for the victims. Letters to cell phone companies fall on deaf ears. Victims often end up obtaining one cell phone number after another—and paying the fee for discontinuing contracts early. While stalking is an ancient crime, it is now an easy and inexpensive crime to commit. Crimes of stalkers are many, yet they are seldom punished. Stalking has only been viewed as a crime for a little more than a decade. Legal authorities tend not to arrest perpetrators when prevention of injury and death is still possible because visible evidence is missing or stalking actions take more time to prove. Victims are urged to obtain protective orders but stalkers violate them in the majority of cases (Tjaden and Thoennes, 1997). This is compared to domestic violence situations where a majority of studies find them effective (Meloy et al, 1997, p. 202). Protective orders are more likely to be effective in the absence of obsession—and obsession is the very nature of stalking. Meloy, in fact, prefers the term obsess ional following to the more popular term stalking (Meloy, pp. 348). And the Supreme Court ruled this past year that police are not obligated to enforce protective orders. The act of obtaining a protective order generally escalates stalking behavior and can lead to violence as it is one of the actions that Meloy says “humiliate or shame the perpetrator, stoke his fury, and increase his risk of violence” (2006, p. 117). In addition, stalkers capably enlist assistance in their criminal acts from cohorts with a variety of motives (Meloy, 2006, 349). Calls of stalking violations to “911” often do not appear to operators to be an emergency and callers are often told to file reports during weekday hours at the local police department. While victims are told to document stalking behaviors carefully, these documents are often ignored and requests of law enforcement for reports often go unheeded. Unlike other crimes, stalking can continue for an extended period of time and has been characterized as a chronic law enforcement problem. Although stalking is a criminal offense, most cases do not result in criminal intervention and very few result in criminal prosecution. To illustrate this problem, less than a half of one per cent of perpetrators were arrested and prosecuted for the crime of stalking in San Diego County in 1996 (Meloy, 1998, p. 3). Meloy notes that prosecuting and law enforcement agencies are loathe to get involved unless they have an established stalking unit, which often only exists in large metropolitan areas. Male victims are hesitant to report cases. It is estimated that only about half of stalking cases are ever reported (Meloy, 2006, p. 107). Meloy describes a seeming disinterest of police, requiring that victims be assertive that officers make incident reports despite their “reluctance” (Meloy, 2006, p. 113). As recent as 2003 he wrote, “Denial of the serious nature of this criminal behavior—and the high risk of violence—is still endemic among mental health professionals and law enforcement professionals” (Meloy, 2006, p. 302.) The question that arises here is why do the very people with legal and ethical obligations to stalkers and their victims deny its reality and the needed responses. This is especially important since one study in 2002 found that 53% of mental health professionals have been stalked by their clients (Meloy, 2006, p. 287). A 2002 report from the US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (called “COPS”) speaks to this matter. The report, Creating an effective Stalking Protocol, noted that, at the start of a large metropolitan police department training on stalking protocol, a patrolman stated, “I don’t recall anything being given to us about stalking. I don’t know what the definition of stalking is. It’s sad…there is no definition out there. We may have briefly gone over it in the academy….I don’t even know if the detectives will be able to tell you what stalking is. As far as I know I’ve never seen anyone arrested for that. I don’t know if it’s taken seriously.” p. 78 During the training, observations about the protocol included comments that judges do not always understand the issues: “We know what the abusers say when they get to court. They make themselves very pitiful. They make the judges buy into it…It is very hard to get people to understand that picture.” Another comment— “I’ve seen judges listen to stalking cases. How do you convey that she moved out, and [that, when] he leaves a box of candy in the back of her car, that is really scary to her? And that she wants the law to do something about it? It’s not the punching. It’s not the physical stuff. So it’s harder to see.” p. 86. And still another— “I just had a phone call. I arrested her husband [previously], and he was charged with stalking, and put on probation. And now he is out stalking her again. And then I have to talk to the complainant and we have to go through the whole arrest process.” p. 89 The report further stated in recommendations for police management and training that even after the training many officers did not fully attain a clear understanding of the nature of the crime – most notably the fact that physical violence need not occur, and strangers need not be involved.” They reported continuing skepticism from police even in the face of training with statements such as, “This is not a problem here” or, “This is not really a crime” or, “Isn’t this a waste of my time?” p. 96 As a result of being stalked, many victims move, quit jobs, change their names and identities (Hall, D. M., 1998, p. 134). Stalking victims reported that “they were at a loss as to the right thing to do and everything they tried turned out wrong” (Roberts, A. R. & Dziegielewski, S. F., 1996, p. 359.) If they have children, none of these precautions are readily taken. Victims lose their homes, cars, jobs, families, friends, and often their children—where victimization is even greater. Research indicates that 64 per cent of stalkers have biological children (Meloy, 2006, p. 127). Stalking is psychological, physical, social, and economic terrorism. With continuous acute traumatic stress, notice I say “continuous acute traumatic stress, not post traumatic stress,” victims’ behaviors change from being most often friendly and outgoing to becoming cautious, paranoid, frightened, less trusting, and suspicious. It must be stressed that these behaviors are appropriate to their experiences. Clients have told us that even once the stalker is deceased, they still can’t believe that the stalker won’t return. This is supported by research that indicates long term damaging effects on the victim. A non-random clinical study of 100 Australian victims reported that most had intrusive recollections and flashbacks, nightmares, appetite disturbances, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts (Pathe & Mullen, 1997, pp. 12-17). Recent newsletters from the Stalking Resource Center –National Center for Victims of Crime (www.ncvc.org/src) call attention to the need to reevaluate the criminal justice system’s responses to stalking, noting that customary instructions may actually be placing victims in further danger. The Center also questions if enough is being done for stalking victims, saying that of the grants given to combat domestic violence, sexual violence and stalking, only seven percent even address problems of stalking—and those statistics are only the ones counted in the Violence Against Women division. And now back to falling in love and how it’s related to stalking. Recent Brain Research The brain research of Helen Fisher and Reid Meloy (p. 121, 251, 259, 278) builds on earlier work on attachment theory in psychology. It also builds on Helen Fisher’s anthropological work showing that stalking behavior may be associated with one or any combination of three primary brain systems that developed for mating and reproduction—the sex drive, attraction and (male/female) attachment (Meloy, 2006, p. 355. The sex drive is related specifically to the hormone testosterone, attraction (or romantic and obsessive love) to dopamine, and attachment (or companion love) to vasopressin and oxytocin. Each of these systems addresses a different adaptive problem of mating, reproduction and parenting (Meloy, p. 355). The sex drive motivates people to consider a variety of possible partners for survival of the species. Attraction causes people to focus their energies on a specific individual. Attachment motivates people to stay around long enough to raise their offspring. Helen Fisher comments that should these all occur at the same time: testosterone mating, dopamine romantic focus on a special other, and a companion at home waiting, there’s a real problem! And different people vary in how much of each hormone they normally have, so you may want to test your present or future partner’s chemical levels for a better expectation of what lies ahead! It’s also important to note that in our society we seem to sell products that encourage the sex drive and romantic love but usually leave companionship for religion to regulate in one way or another and marriage counselors to do what they can when it doesn’t all work. Attachment in general is biologically determined. It is behavior specific to a species which when activated keeps children close to their caretakers. These behaviors are seen in both birds and mammals. Pathologies of attachment have more recently been studied in stalkers. These may result from parental loss, neglect, abuse or abandonment, and may also be related in some cases to genetic defect where the child is unable to attach (Meloy, 2006, p. 273). In recent studies of violence outside of the area of stalking, violence was seen to be the result of both a genetic weakness that was then exaggerated by parental neglect or abuse (Bower, 2006, p. 328). In any case, given the behaviors of stalkers and the related high levels of violence, there appears to be a predominance of attachment disorder in stalkers (Meloy, 2006, pp. 251-279). The results of two brain imaging studies with “happily” in love men and women using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging demonstrated elevated activity of dopamine in the reward/ motivation system. This activity produces focused attention and unwavering motivation and goal-directed behaviors. These are associated with other feelings that lovers report including, “exhilaration, increased energy, hyperactivity, and sleeplessness” (Meloy, 2006,p. 357). This system however can be stimulated by a number of phenomena including money and cocaine. Most of us know about the “feel good” chemical dopamine, related as it is to the terms “dope” and “dopers.” Activation of these pathways is most likely related to several traits of the “spurned or unrequited” stalker. According to recent conversations I had with Helen Fisher, unpublished studies continue to demonstrate this response including heightened energy, focused attention and intense motivation to “pursue the victim” (Meloy, 2006, p. 357). Deactivation of other brain responses may be part of the problem. The right amygdala, involved in fear and other negative emotions, is deactivated and this may cause stalkers to be unable to pay attention to the dangers of their actions. Another shared characteristic of lovers and stalkers is their obsessive thoughts about the loved one. They cannot get these obtrusive thoughts out of their minds. This is linked to the suppressed activity of central serotonin because research links low serotonin to obsessive thoughts. Low serotonin is also linked to another characteristic of lovers and stalkers—impulsivity. There seems to be a negative feedback loop between dopamine and serotonin. Low serotonin elevates dopamine activity and elevated dopamine suppresses serotonin. As the stalker feels more energy, focuses attention and motivation to pursue the victim, rising levels of dopamine suppress serotonin leading to more obsession and dysphoria. As obsession continues, dopamine further lowers serotonin. Other brain systems combine with these processes to produce the symptoms of “energy, impulsivity, dysphoria, fearlessness and obsession” (Meloy, 2006, p. 359). We have observed that these individuals often act as if they were on methamphetamines even when they were not. Failed in attachment from childhood, caught in the negative feedback loop of increasing dopamine and decreasing serotonin, along with increasing levels of stress cortisol, continued rejection by the victim sets in motion a frustration attraction response which may increase and sustain the stalker’s ability to stalk. They may also experience abandonment rage which happens when an expected reward is in doubt or unobtainable, stimulating the amygdala in the brain and triggering rage. Romantic love and rage have a great deal in common, both produce obsessive thinking, focused attention, motivation and goal-directed behaviors desiring union or revenge (Meloy, 2006, p. 361). When cortisol has been stimulated over time the levels become abnormally low and unlike previously thought, it is low cortisol not testosterone that is related to violence in bullies in school and prisoners in jails (Mac Keen, D. 2000). Chronic cortisol over-stimulation leads to depression as well (Sapolsky, R. 1996, pp. 749-750). . Unlike normal people, personality disordered individuals cannot, or will not, (there we go with free will and determinism again!) go into the normal stages of grieving the loss of a relationship as others do and have lower levels of serotonin to deal with the resulting depression. Their misdirected intelligence also supports their obsessive thinking and high energy, while focusing their plotting and scheming pursuits. Personality disordered individuals (narcissists, borderlines, histrionics, etc.) have no ethical guidelines other than what is called psychological egoism—everyone and everything is seen as a means to their own desires and wishes, and they readily use others in pursuit of their needs and wants whenever and wherever possible. Meanwhile, the victim has ongoing acute traumatic stress from the perpetrator. Though most designated victims are similar in education, intelligence and job status to the perpetrator, they find themselves with: 1) decreasing resources through loss of jobs where the perpetrator has threatened co-workers and employers; 2) loss of support from friends and family resulting from the perpetrator’s well planted malicious lies; and 3) little assistance from law enforcement and mental health professionals who are not sufficiently educated regarding stalking and often in denial themselves. Perpetrators often excel in manipulating both courts and counselors convincing them that they are the innocent ones and it is the victim who is at fault. Perpetrators even threaten the victim with jail and set the victim up for incarceration. The victim develops severe, and as researchers point out, appropriate depression, paranoia, panic attacks and hopelessness (Meloy, 2006, p. 114). When there are children involved, they not only experience the real suffering of the situation but receive the message from society that the perpetrator is doing nothing wrong—and thus another generation is set up to continue such abuse. Multiple sciences show the relationship of child abuse, neglect, and poor role modeling to crime. While listening to the victims’ realities and believing these realities is crucial—since statistics show that there are seldom fake reports, counseling for the victim is of too little benefit until the stalking is stopped. It’s similar to doing surgery in the middle of the battlefield where bombs continue to explode. Or giving endless blood transfusions without ever stopping the cause of the bleeding. “PTSD” counseling has to be done after the stalking has stopped—when it is “post!” Research by various PTSD experts demonstrate clearly what happens to the brains of victims (Sapolsky, 1996, pp. 749-750). After the trauma is over, it is critical to heal the damage. But first we need to stop its cause. That’s called removing harm! I sometimes say, only half jokingly, that if we refuse to stop the stalking behavior then perhaps we should consider administering continuous anesthesia at safe levels to victims until we are prepared to stop the crime. We certainly shouldn’t judge victims for self medicating behavior, usually inadequate, when no one is willing to stop the crime that causes the suffering. What both the victim and the perpetrator need most is for the stalking behavior to be stopped before greater violence and death occur. To allow the stalking to continue not only increases the likelihood of violence for victims, but worsens the obsessive illness of the perpetrator where they are, as Fisher and Meloy point out, in a state of addiction related to their own chemicals. They are seen to relapse in the same way as addicts to cues such as people, events and songs (Meloy, 2006, pp. 364-365 ). One perpetrator said, “She was like a drug…that I needed…my high was being with her…I felt like dying when not with her.” After the victim obtained a protective order, he murdered her. He said he let his obsession ruin his life. “I lost it all because of my obsession…This obsession was bad…It was like being in heaven and in hell at the same time.” (Meloy, p. 140.) A caution regarding romantic love, sexual activity and the violence potential: sexual intimacy is the largest factor in predicting stalking violence with frequencies over 50 per cent where sexual intimacy has occurred (Meloy, 2006, p. 207, 212). In the past, conventional and religious morals, along with fear of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease discouraged people from having sex at least to some degree. While science has responded to some of these prohibitions partially, we may need to take violence into consideration as another potential “side effect” of sex. Since sex itself does not seem to be at the core of the issue (Meloy, 2006, p. 202), it appears that the intimacy of shared secrets, revealed vulnerabilities that occur as part of sexual intimacy, are. It is wise to consider whether you want to become intimate with someone you might not want to be stalked by! A few suggestions for response to stalking There have long been recommendations for a team approach for stalking victims—to include the victim, an emotionally supportive companion, a mental health professional, a local police officer familiar with the case, a local prosecutor, in some cases a private attorney and private security guard/investigator (Meloy, 2006, p. 180). Meloy warns us consistently that the victim should not be the one to confront the perpetrator (Meloy, 2006, p. 289). Should we treat or incarcerate? Research indicates that both social condemnation and humane psychiatric and psychological treatment are required. Mental health and criminal justice responses are both necessary but each alone is insufficient. Some will continue to stalk from prison and additional charges may need to be filed before release on parole (Meloy, 2006, p. 115). The non-psychotic stalker is obsessive, focused, angry, and more likely to be threatening and violent. Treatment is likely to be difficult and may require long-term psychotherapy focusing on maladaptive character traits. For incarcerated stalkers this should be taken into consideration in making decisions about release (Meloy, 2006, p. 142). Tracking devices should be considered for use on the perpetrator—appropriate since perpetrators so enjoy using them on others. A shelter should be considered, not for the victims, but for the perpetrators, where they may receive both treatment, gainful employment and carefully monitored visits from any children or relatives. Future research Much research remains to be done. Following on the suggestions of Fisher and Meloy, it would be good to investigate levels of oxytocin, vasopressin and cortisol in stalkers to determine further their relationship to stalking and violence. In a time of brain imaging technology, we need far more information about the stalker and the victim if we are to respond best to the needs of both. T. K. Wolf is working with the University of Pennsylvania Medical School with Near Infra Red imaging technology which, unlike present lie-detectors, accurately indicates when people are telling lies. We first thought about the challenge of getting perpetrators to cooperate with such a study. Then we realized that most victims would be glad to demonstrate that they are telling the truth when so often they are not believed. There has been no formalized long range study on either stalkers or their victims (Meloy, 2006, p. 114). We need more predictors of stalking. Little to no research examines the impact of parents who are stalkers on their minor children—especially if the children are used as pawns in the process—as they most often are. A frequently asked question is why American Indians are the highest racial statistic in stalking. The answer is that we really don’t know. Some have guessed that it is related to uneven law enforcement on and off reservations. That’s unlikely however since so few stalkers are arrested anywhere. Another hypothesis is that since so many Indian stalking victims are leaders in their communities, they provide a challenge for stalkers related to theories of dominance and conquest. But we really don’t know. Likewise, we need study regarding the cost of stalking to work productivity of victims and their families, and the economic cost to society where killings often happen in offices and public settings. The result of stalking is great loss—life, children, jobs, belongings, safety, and trust. Instructed to relocate and change identities, survivors suffer long lasting emotional and social effects. The damage to children affected by stalking appears permanent. How to we assign a dollar number to this collective loss? Summary Finally, the “endemic denial of law enforcement and mental health professionals” must be studied and treated (Meloy, 2006, p 302). Denial is well known to cause people to look the other way when faced with horrible events—whether parental molestation, stalking, or genocide, but as a professional way of being, its results are nothing but destructive. And our society needs to be examined for the beliefs and attitudes that allow and facilitate stalking—and beyond that to allow stalkers to go unchecked. We need to use the technology that so enables the perpetrator now to stop the terrorism they cause. We must be as afraid of the terrorists within as we are those without. We need to give victims back their rights and freedoms. Obligation teaches us that we must do good—the results must be good, not just that we want or intend to do good. We ought not to inflict evil or harm, we ought to prevent and remove evil or harm, and we ought to do or promote good. There is much work left to do. References Albert, Ethel M., Theodore C. Denise, & Sheldon P. Peterfreund. 1988. Great Traditions in Ethics, 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bower, Bruce. 2006. Disruptive kids grow into their behavior. Science News, 169:21, 328. Firth, R. 1970. “Ethical Absolutism and the Ideal Observer.” W. Sellers and John Hospers, eds. Readings in Ethical Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 212- 214. Hall, D. M. 1998. Victims of stalking. In J. R. Meloy, ed., The Psychology of Stalking: Clinical and Forensic Perspectives. San Diego, California: Academic Press Mac Keen, D. 2000. Hormonal rages: A new study links decreased levels of cortisol with aggressive behavior in boys. From http://www.salon.com/health/log/2000/01/14/cortisol. Meloy, J. Reid. 2006. The Scientific Pursuit of Stalking. San Diego: Specialized Training Services. Meloy, J.R. 1998. The Psychology of Stalking: Clinical and Forensic Perspectives. San Diego, California: Academic Press Pathe, R., Mullen, P. 1997. The impact of stalkers on their victims. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170:12-17. Roberts, A. R. & Dziegielewski, S. F. 1996, Assessment, typology, and intervention with the survivors of stalking. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 1, 359-368. Sapolsky, R. 1996. Why stress is bad for your brain. Science, 273:749-750. Stalking Resource Center –National Center for Victims of Crime (www.ncvc.org/src) US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2002, Creating an effective Stalking Protocol. pp. 78, 86, 96.     Thank you to Active iNet Services for hosting this website.    visitors since March 9, 2006