# anti-stalking laws (a spinoff of the legal insanity post) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 22, 2002, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-stalking-laws-a-spinoff-of-the-legal-insanity-post/133332 "2002-10-22T03:59:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![The\_Calculus\_of\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aeb1de/32.png) [@The\_Calculus\_of\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Calculus_of_Logic)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2002, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-stalking-laws-a-spinoff-of-the-legal-insanity-post/133332/1 "2002-10-22T03:59:55Z")
A sizeable percent of stalkers do not realize they are terrorizing another person, but they are treated the same as someone who intentionally does so (someone who commits terroristic threats, for example or harassment). For a case scenario, assume someone has a crush on another person. They follow that person around. assuming that 1. they don’t know they are hurting them 2. they would stop if asked to stop Does this deserve to be penalized at all? if so, does it deserve the same penalization as someone who 1. intentionally hurts someone 2. would do so, even if asked to stop Most states still require a threat to be found guilty of stalking, but many do not. Unintentionally making someone uncomfortable is penalized the same as intentionally making them uncomfortable. Disorderly conduct (in indiana at least) only applies if you are asked to stop, refuse to do so, and keep on acting up. What about stalking? you dont need to be asked to stop to be found guilty, is that fair? (p.s., i love this board. It is much more liberal than the other board i waste my life on). ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2002, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-stalking-laws-a-spinoff-of-the-legal-insanity-post/133332/2 "2002-10-22T04:27:50Z")
First, In your post you claim that: > [@](#): > > A sizeable percent of stalkers do not realize they are terrorizing another person, but they are treated the same as someone who intentionally does so (someone who commits terroristic threats, for example or harassment). Do you have a cite for that? If you do not have a cite the staement is irrelavent. It would be the same as saying “Most killers did not realize they were killing someone.” Second, if someone doesn’t realize that their actions constitute stalking they must be an idiot. These things are pretty clear cut. Slee ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2002, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-stalking-laws-a-spinoff-of-the-legal-insanity-post/133332/3 "2002-10-22T04:30:21Z")
First, In your post you claim that: > [@](#): > > A sizeable percent of stalkers do not realize they are terrorizing another person, but they are treated the same as someone who intentionally does so (someone who commits terroristic threats, for example or harassment). Do you have a cite for that? If you do not have a cite the statement is irrelavent. It would be the same as saying “Most killers did not realize they were killing someone.” Second, if someone doesn’t realize that their actions constitute stalking they must be an idiot. These things are pretty clear cut. Slee ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2002, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-stalking-laws-a-spinoff-of-the-legal-insanity-post/133332/4 "2002-10-22T18:21:02Z")
Cite, please for a stalking law that finds completely irrelevant the intentions of the stalker,whether the stalker knew or reasonably should have known that the actions would cause fear or harm, and whether the stalker was previously informed to stop the behavior. Ny’s stalking law: > [@](#): > > S 120.45 Stalking in the fourth degree. > A person is guilty of stalking in the fourth degree when he or she > _intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose_, engages in a course of > conduct directed at a specific person, and \*knows or reasonably should > know \*that such conduct: > > 1. is likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical > health, safety or property of such person, a member of such person`s > immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted; > or > 2. causes material harm to the mental or emotional health of such > person, where such conduct consists of following, telephoning or initi- > ating communication or contact with such person, a member of such > person`s immediate family or a third party with whom such person is > acquainted, and the \*actor was previously clearly informed to cease that > conduct \*; or > 3. is likely to cause such person to reasonably fear that his or her > employment, business or career is threatened, where such conduct > consists of appearing, telephoning or initiating communication or > contact at such person`s place of employment or business, and the actor > was _previously clearly informed to cease that conduct_. > Stalking in the fourth degree is a class B misdemeanor. > (italics added) And the stalker not realizing that the contact is undesired is a far different thing from the stalker not accepting it. I don’t think most stalkers don’t realize that the person they’re interested in wants nothing to do with them- if the victim was interested there’s no need to stalk. The stalker refuses to _accept_ that the victim is not interested - He ( or she) wants to change the victims mind at the very least, or at worst , make the victim pay for the lack of interest. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2002, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-stalking-laws-a-spinoff-of-the-legal-insanity-post/133332/5 "2002-10-22T18:29:06Z")
Cite, please for a stalking law that finds completely irrelevant the intentions of the stalker,whether the stalker knew or reasonably should have known that the actions would cause fear or harm, and whether the stalker was previously informed to stop the behavior. Ny’s stalking law: > [@](#): > > S 120.45 Stalking in the fourth degree. > A person is guilty of stalking in the fourth degree when he or she > _intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose_, engages in a course of > conduct directed at a specific person, and \*knows or reasonably should > know \*that such conduct: > > 1. is likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical > health, safety or property of such person, a member of such person`s > immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted; > or > 2. causes material harm to the mental or emotional health of such > person, where such conduct consists of following, telephoning or initi- > ating communication or contact with such person, a member of such > person`s immediate family or a third party with whom such person is > acquainted, and the \*actor was previously clearly informed to cease that > conduct \*; or > 3. is likely to cause such person to reasonably fear that his or her > employment, business or career is threatened, where such conduct > consists of appearing, telephoning or initiating communication or > contact at such person`s place of employment or business, and the actor > was _previously clearly informed to cease that conduct_. > Stalking in the fourth degree is a class B misdemeanor. > (italics added) And the stalker not realizing that the contact is undesired is a far different thing from the stalker not accepting it. I don’t think most stalkers don’t realize that the person they’re interested in wants nothing to do with them- if the victim was interested there’s no need to stalk. The stalker refuses to _accept_ that the victim is not interested - He ( or she) wants to change the victims mind at the very least, or at worst , make the victim pay for the lack of interest.