�

Stalking in Sweden Prevalence and prevention

�

The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet - Brå) – a centre for information about crime and its prevention

The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet - Brå) exists to reduce crime and increase the feeling of security in the community. We do this by finding out facts and spreading knowledge about crime itself, the work done on crime prevention and the reactions of the legal system to crime.

Note: The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, Brottsförebyggande rådet – Brå, will be called ‘the National Council’ in this translation.

This report can be ordered in book retailers or fromFritzes Kundservice, �06 47 Stockholm, Sweden Telephone 08-690 9� 90, fax 08-690 9� 9�, e-mail: order.fritzes@nj.se

Produced by: Brottsförebyggande rådet, Information and förlag, Box �386, ��� 93 Stockholm, Sweden. Telephone 08-40� 87 00, fax 08-4�� 90 75, e-mail: info@bra.seThe Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention on the Internet: www.bra.seISBN 9�-85664-50-�Authors: Anna Mia Dovelius, Jonas Öberg and Stina HolmbergCover: Layouten Johanna BlombergPrinted by: Edita Norstedts �006© Brottsförebyggande rådet �006

3

ContentsPREFACE 5

INTRODUCTION 6

TheNationalCouncilcommission 6 Materialsandmethods 6

ThE PREvAlENCE OF STAlkINg IN SwEDEN 8

Calculationoftheprevalenceofstalkingintheentirepopulation 19

STAlkINg OF CERTAIN gROUPS 20

Stalkingcelebrities 24

lEgISlATION AND ITS APPlICATION IN SwEDEN 27

Legislation 27 ThereportoftheAdministrationofJusticeCommittee 29 Somepractitioners’viewsonlegislationanditsapplication 31

DISCUSSION 33

REFERENCES 42

APPENDIx 1 44

Selectionprocedurefortheinterviewsurvey 44 Possiblesourcesoferrorintheinterviewsurvey 45

APPENDIx 2 46

Questionnaireusedintheinterviewsurvey 46

APPENDIx 3 50

TablesofstalkinginSweden 50

APPENDIx 4 52

In-depthinterview1:Inger,politician,persecutedfor severalyears 52

In-depthinterview2:Sophie,case-worker,harassedviathe Internetforyears 55

In-depthinterview3:Peter,journalist,hasreceived anonymousthreateninglettersforyears 58

4

5

PrefaceTherearepeoplewhoare repeatedlyharassedorpersecutedbyanotherperson,whothreatensthem,makesunwelcomevisits,phonesrepeatedlyandsendslettersore-mailswithoffensivecontents.Thisisstalking,andsomethingwhichhas received increasing attention in recent years, bothinternationallyandinSweden.Inordertoobtainabetterpictureofhowcommonstalking is inSwedenandwhat canbedone toprevent it andcombatit,theNationalCouncilwascommissionedbytheSwedishgovern-mentinsummer2005toproduceaninformationbaseforstalking.Thereportwasto includeadescriptionofthesituationbothinSwedenandabroad.ThereportwaspresentedinFebruary2006.InorderthatpeopleoutsideSwedencouldreadthestudy,theNationalCouncilishavingpartsofthereporttranslatedintoEnglish.Thetranslationincludesacompre-hensivestudyofstalkingprevalence,descriptionsoflegislationandmeas-urestakenbytheSwedishlegalsystem.

ThereportwaswrittenbyAnnaMiaDoveliusandJonasÖberg,bothinvestigatorsattheNationalCouncil,andStinaHolmberg,HeadofSection.ValuableideaswereprovidedbyaconsultationgroupconsistingofGudrunNordborg,InformationManagerattheCrimeVictimCompensationandSupportAuthority,MartinGrann,HeadofTheCentreforViolencePre-ventionatKarolinskainstitutet,MonicaNebelius,InvestigationsSecretaryfortheInvestigativeCommitteeonViolenceandThreatstoElectedOfficials,BoHägglund,DetectiveSuperintendent,NationalPoliceBoard,andHelenaSilfverhielm,HeadofDivision,theNationalBoardofHealthandWelfare.

Stockholm,Sweden,May2006

JanAnderssonGeneralDirector StinaHolmberg HeadofSection

6

IntroductionThe National Council commissionIn June 2005, the National Council was commissioned by the Swedishgovernment toproducean informationbase for stalking.Parliamentarydiscussionsabouttheneedformorestringentlegislationforthisoffencehadledtoanawarenessthatmoreknowledgewasrequiredregardingtheprevalence andnatureof stalkingbefore anydecisionson changing thelegislationcouldbetaken. ThecommissiontotheNationalCouncilcalledforadescriptionofthephenomenonand its prevalence, andproposals formeasures topreventandcombatpersecutionofthiskind.Thecommissionalsoaskedforade-scriptionofinternationalexperiencesinthisarea.ThisEnglishtranslationcoversmainlythesectionofthereportwhichdescribestheprevalenceofstalking inSweden.A shortdescription is alsoprovidedof the relevantSwedishlegislationandtheongoingdebateabouttheneedforachangeinthelaw.TheentirereportisavailableinSwedishontheNationalCouncilwebsite.Thecommissionreportwassubmittedtothegovernmenton28February2006.

Materials and methodsInordertoformapictureofhowcommonstalkingisinSweden,apreva-lencesurveywascarriedoutamongthepopulation.Forthesurvey,4000randomlyselectedweretelephonedandansweredquestionsregardinganyexperiencetheymayhavehadofrepeatedharassment.Forthesurvey,re-peatedharassmentwasdefinedaswhensomebodyhasbeenfollowedorwatchedby the sameperson several times, or has hadunwanted visits,telephonecalls,letters,email,textmessages,presentsandthelikefromthesamepersononseveraloccasions.Thosewhoanswered‘yes’wereaskedfollow-upquestionsregardingthenatureandscopeoftheharassment,itsconsequencesandwhatmeasuresweretaken1. Asitisreasonabletoassumethatcertainvocationalgroupsaremoresubject to stalking due to their professions, an Internet-based question-nairewasalsousedwhichhadessentiallythesamequestionsasthetele-phone interviews. Informationabout thequestionnairewas thensent toeverymemberofparliament,allofthealmost800prosecutorsinthecoun-tryandalloftheover1700membersoftheSwedishPsychiatricAssocia-tion.Peoplewithexperienceofrepeatedharassmentintheirworkingliveswereaskedinthequestionnairetodescribewhattheyweresubjectedto.Membersofparliamentandprosecutorswere contactedby e-mail,psy-chiatristsbyletter2.� See appendix �.� See appendix �.

7

Interviews were also carried out with security personnel at two TVcompanies and an agency for performing artists, and with three repre-sentativesofvarioussectionsofthelegalsystem.Threepeoplewhoweresubjectedtostalkingwerealsointerviewedindepth. Inaddition,acomprehensivereviewwascarriedoutoflegislationinSwedenandincountrieswithspecialanti-stalkinglaws.Finally,interna-tionalstudiesintothisareawerealsoreviewed.

8

The prevalence of stalking in SwedenOftheover4000randomlychosenpeoplewhotookpartintheNationalCouncil telephonesurvey,ninepercent(362people)statedthatatsometimeintheirlivestheyhavebeensubjectedtorepeatedharassmentbythesameperson.Threequartersofthesewerewomen. Inthecountrieswherespecialanti-stalkinglawsareinforce,thereisusuallyarequirementthatthevictimwasfrightenedbytherepeatedhar-assmentinorderfortheperpetratortobeconvictedoftheoffence.Ifthecriterion that the victim is to have experienced the harassment as veryfrighteningisaddedtotheNationalCouncilsurveymaterial,thepercent-age of victims falls to 5.9 percent of those taking part. The percentagesubjectedtorepeatedharassmentwhoexperienceditasveryfrighteningwasthreepercent.

ThREE PERCENT hAD BEEN REPEATEDlY hARASSED IN ThE lAST YEAR

Inordertoformabetterpictureofhowcommonthisphenomenonis,itisalsousefultocalculatehowmanypeoplewhohavebeensubjectedtore-peatedharassmentduringoneyear.Approximatelyathirdofthosewhohavebeenharassed,bothwomenandmen,statedthatthisoccurredduringthelasttwelvemonths.Atotal2.9ofpercentofthosesurveyedhadbeenharassedduringthelastyear(4.0percentofthewomenand1.6percentofthemen). IfthecriterionthatthevictimistohaveexperiencedtheharassmentasquiteorveryfrighteningisaddedtotheNationalCouncilsurveymaterial,onepercentwereharassedduringthelastyear.

Table xx: Percentages of people repeatedly harassed at some time in their lives or during the last year respectively, and who experienced the harassment as frightening.

At some time Last year in their lives

Repeatedly harassed 9.0 �.9

Experienced harassment as quite or very frightening 5.9 �.0

Experienced harassment as very frightening 3.0 �.0

ThE SwEDISh RESUlTS SIMIlAR TO ThOSE OF EARlIER STUDIES

How do these results compare to those obtained in studies from othercountries?Therehavebeentwomajorstudiesintostalkingprevalence,oneintheUSAandoneinEnglandandWales.TheAmericanstudywascar-riedoutduring in1995–1996and thedefinitionof stalkingused in thestudystipulatedthatthevictimmusthavebeenharassedbythesameper-

9

sononatleasttwooccasionsandbeenveryfrightenedofbeingsubjectedtophysicalviolence. TheBritishstudyisfrom1998.Itusedawiderdefinitionandshowedhowmanypeoplehadbeensubjectedto“repeatedandunwantedatten-tion”atsometimeintheirlives.

Theresultsofthesestudiesindicatethatstalkingismoreorlessequal-lycommoninall threecountries.It isnotpossible,however,tomakeamoreprecisecomparisonoftheresultsofthethreestudiessincetheyarenotsetoutinexactlythesameway.Thepopulationsampledifferssome-whatandquestionsregardingwhatpeopleexperiencedarenotformulatedidenticallyinthethreestudies.EvenwheretheSwedishstudyhasinten-tionallyusedthesameexpressionsasinthepreviousstudies,itisstillnotpossibletosaywithcertaintywhetherthelinguisticvaluesoftheSwedishversionsarethesame.Thiscanaffecttheanswersreceived.Somecautiouscomparisonscanbemade,however. ThesurveygroupintheAmericanstudycoversthesameagegroupastheSwedishone3.Eightpercentofthesesaidthattheyhadbeenstalkedinawaywhich frightened themto someextent (“somewhatora little fright-ened”).Fivepercenthadatsometimebeenstalkedinawaywhichmadethemveryfrightened,orfrightenedthattheywouldsufferphysicalinjury,comparedtothreepercentinSweden.Thepercentagewhohadbeenstalkedwithoutbeingfrightenedisnotindicated. TheBritishstudysamplesanarroweragerange.Thosetelephonedare16–59,comparedto18–79intheSwedishstudy.Thepercentageinthissurveywhoanswerthattheyhavebeenrepeatedlyharassedatsometimeistwelvepercent.Ifpeopleover59areexcludedfromtheSwedishmate-rial,thepercentagewhohavebeenrepeatedlyharassedincreasesfrom9.0to9.9percent.Withoutthisagegroup,thepercentagewhohavebeensub-jected in the last year also increases, to 3.6percent,which is a slightlyhigherpercentagethaninEnglandandWales.Ifthosesubjectedtoharass-mentaretohaveexperienceditasfrighteningtosomeextent,thepercent-ageisslightlyhigherintheSwedishstudythanintheBritishone4. Acomparativesummaryoftheresultsofthethreestudiesispresentedintable3inappendix3.

REPORTS OF SERIOUS hARASSMENT ARE FREQUENT

Themediannumberofincidentssufferedbywomenvictimswas30inci-dentsandthemedianperiodoverwhichtheseincidentsoccurredwassixmonths.Thecorrespondingrateformenwas20incidentsand5,5months.Withthebroaderdefinitionofstalkingusedinthisstudy,onemightbeled

3) The American study, however, did not have an upper age limit. About two percent of those interviewed in this study were 80 or older.

4) In the Swedish study: inte särskilt skrämmande, ganska skrämmande and mycket skrämmande. In the British study: “a little distressed”, “fairly distressed” and “very distressed”.

�0

tobelievethatmanyoftherespondentswouldincludemoretrivialinci-dents.Therespondents,however,seemtohavehadtheirownunderstand-ingofwhichsituationswererelevant,andhavereportedmoreseriousex-periencesthanjustoneortwoincidentsofmildlyfrighteningharassment.Therewereinfactonlytenpeopleofalltherespondentswhosaidthatatsometimeintheirlivestheyhavebeensubjectedtonon-frighteningharass-mentbyapersonontwo–fouroccasions.Thiswasdespitethefactthatsuchexperiencesoughttobemorefrequentthanthosewhichoccurredonahighernumberofoccasions.Almosteverybodywhosaidthattheyhavebeenharassedhasthussaidthatitwasonatleastfiveoccasions.

MOST COMMON TO BE hARASSED BY SOMEONE kNOwN

Inmost cases in theSwedish survey, thevictimknew theperpetrator5 insomeway.Inaquarterofcasesthiswasapartnerorex-partner,andinal-most a quarter of cases some other private relationship was involved. Atenthof therespondentshadbeensubjectedtorepeatedharassmentbyawork colleague or fellow student, and six percent had been harassed bysomebodywhotheycameintocontactwiththroughtheirwork.Approxi-matelyonethirdoftherespondentsstatedthattheyhadbeenharassedbysomeoneunknownorthattheyhadnoideawhoitwas.

Inthefollowingsection,thesurveymaterialhasbeendividedintothreecategoriesbasedonthevictim’srelationshiptotheperpetrator: •“Closerelationship”–referstothosepeopleatwhichviolationofintegritylegislationisaimed,i.e.currentorex-spouseorlive-inpartner,girlfriend/boyfriendorpartneronehasnotcohabitedwith,parents/step-parents,siblings,childrenandotherclosefamilymembers. •“Otherrelationship”–referstofriends,acquaintances,casualsexualpartners,neighbours,relativesotherthanfamilymembers,andcurrentorpreviousworkcolleagues,fellowstudentsorthelike. •“Unknown/stranger”–includesboththosewhoareawarethatthestalkerisunknowntothemandthosewhodonotknowwhatrelationshiptheyhavetotheperson.

Inthecontinuedpresentationofresults,thesmallgroupharassedduetotheirworkhasbeenexcluded.Thiscategoryof stalking isdescribed in-steadinthesectionshowingtheresultsofthespecialquestionnairessenttomembersofparliament,prosecutorsandpsychiatrists.

5) The National Council has chosen to illustrate the stalking phenomenon based upon one individual harassing another individual. The main reason for this is that international stalking research normally focuses upon this definition. It should be pointed out, however, that a single victim may be stalked by more than one perpetrator, and that one stalker may have more than one victim.

��

Table xx: The harassed person’s relationship to the perpetrator; percent (n=3�56)

Percentage

“Close relationship” �8

“Other relationship” 33

Contact through work 6

“Unknown/stranger” 34

Total �00

Theresultsindicatingtheperpetrator’srelationshiptothevictimarelarge-lythesameasintheBritishstudy.Inthatstudyaswell,thestalkerisastranger to thevictim ina thirdof the cases.Thepercentageof the re-spondentswhohavebeenstalkedbyastrangerislowerintheAmericanstudy–underaquarter–whilethepercentagewhohavebeenstalkedbyapartnerorex-partnerishigher. ThisismostlikelyduetothenarrowerstalkingdefinitionusedintheAmericanstudywhichexcludeslessseriouscasesandinthesecasesitismoreusualthatthestalkerisanunknown(seebelow).

RESPONSES INClUDE EvERYThINg FROM INCONSIDERATE SMOkINg TO RAPE AND kIDNAPPINg

Apartfromanumberofspecificquestionsaboutdifferentformsofharass-ment, those surveyedwere also asked if theyhadbeenharassed in anyotherway.Theanswersshowhowvariedthenatureofstalkingiswhentheonlycommonfactorisrepeatedharassment.Onerespondentsaidthatthepersonwhoharassedherstoodonhisbalconysmokingalthoughthiswasnotallowedandthatshewasallergic.Anothersaidthatshehadbeenthreatened with weapons and raped, and that her son had been kid-napped.

ThE ClOSER ThE RElATIONShIP, ThE MORE ThE vICTIM IS hARASSED

Table4belowshowsthatpersecutioninallgroupsalmostalwaysincludesharassmentintheformoftelephonecalls,e-mailsorletters.Over90per-centofvictimshavebeensubjectedtothis. Ontheotherhand,thedegreetowhichstalkingincludedthephysicalpresenceoftheperpetratorvariedbetweenthegroups.Victimswhohadaprevious“close relationship” to theperpetratorweremost subjected tostalkingwhichincludedphysicalpersecution,threatsandviolence.Inninecasesoutoften,theyhadbeensubjectedtoharassmentofthekindwherethestalkerhadbeenwiththevictimorcloseby.Examplesofsuchkindsofharassmentarevisits to thehome,workplaceorotherplaces thevictim

6) Of the 37 people who did not answer the question, �7 stopped the interview after the first question. In the other ten cases, the interview was ended before the question regarding relation-ship to the perpetrator since the person was subjected to fewer than five incidents which were not considered especially frightening.

��

usuallygoes,damage to thevictim’sproperty,persecutionof thevictimoutdoorsorthestalkermarkinghis/herpresencebyleavingthingsforthevictimtofind. Followingpeoplewhentheyareoutdoorsormarkingtheirpresencebyleavingthingsforthevictimtofindisbehaviouroftenassociatedwiththeconceptofstalking.In“closerelationships”,sixoutoftenhadexperienceofsuchharassment.

Table 4: Different forms of harassment according to type of relationship between victim and perpetrator; in percent

“Close “Other “Unknown/ relationship” relationship” stranger” All n = 90 n = �06 n = �08 n = 304

Harassment by telephone, e-mail or letters �00 87 87 9�

Harasser physically present 89 77 4� 68

Telephone contact only 3 5 �9 �3

Harasser follows or marks presence 60 34 �4 38

Twothirdsofthosewitha“closerelationship”totheperpetratorhadbeenthreatenedandoverhalfhadbeensubjectedtoviolence. Amajorityofvictimsinallgroupshavebeenquiteorveryfrightenedby the harassment. The percentage who have been very frightened wasgreater,however,amongthevictimswhohada“closerelationship”totheperpetrator.Therewasalsoagreaterpercentageof thegroupwhosaidthatharassmenthadgenerallyaffectedtheirlivestoalargeextent.

Table 5: Exposure to violence and threats of violence, and experience of harassment, according to type of relationship between victim and perpetrator; percent

“Close “Other “Unknown/ relationship” relationship” stranger” All n = 90 n = �06 n = �08 n = 304

Subjected to threat of violence (self or close relative) 67 44 30 46

Subjected to violence (self or close relative) 56 �6 8 �5

Experienced harassment as quite or very frightening 78 69 70 7�

Experienced harassment as very frightening 46 37 3� 38

Harassment has generally affected life to a very great extent 45 �6 �4 �7

Generallyitcanbesaidthattheclosertherelationshipistothepersondo-ingtheharassing,themorefrighteningtheharassmentisexperiencedbythevictim.Thispatternisalsorepeatedwithinthegroup“closerelation-ship”.Peoplewhohadbeenharassedbyathencurrentorpreviouspartnertheyhadlivedwith,experiencedharassmentasveryfrighteningtoagreat-erextentthanwhenthepartnerwasonewithwhomtheyhadnotlived.

�3

Thesepeopleinturnexperiencedharassmentmoreoftenasveryfrighten-ing than those who had been harassed by a parent/step-parent, sibling,childorotherclose familymember.Thosewhohadbeenmarriedtoorlivedwiththeperpetratoralsohadpropertydamaged,hadbeenfollowedoutdoorsandhadtheirlivesobservedtoagreaterextent7. Thoseinterviewedwerealsoaskediftheyhadbeensubjectedtoformsofharassmentotherthanthosetheyhadansweredspecificquestionsabout8.Theinterviewersthenbrieflynoteddownthemoreconcretedescriptionsofharassmentprovidedbysomeofthepeopleinterviewed.Hereareexam-plesfromthosewitha“closerelationship”totheperpetrator:“followedmeinhiscar”,“hehaslockedmein”,“threatened/argued”,“assaultedbothmeandthechildren”,“mentalterror”,“assaultandarson”,“shoutedswear-wordsatmeintown”,“frightenedthechildren”,“blowsandthreats”,“constantlywatching”,“forcedcontact”,“pro-vokedintoameeting”.

STAlkINg IN OThER RElATIONShIPS

Thepatternofstalkingwhenthevictimhadsome“otherrelationship”totheperpetrator9hadsimilaritiestothatwhichoccurredwhenthevictimandperpetratorhada“closerelationship”.Buttherewerealsodifferences.

Forbothgroups,thepatternofharassmentnormallymeantthattheperpetratorwasphysicallypresentinthesituation;persecutionsolelybytelephone contact was unusual. However, it was less common that theperpetrator literally persecuted or threatened the victim in cases wheretheyhadnothada“closerelationship”.Neitherhadmostofthembeensubjectedtoviolence.Thepercentagewhosaidtheharassmentgenerallyaffectedtheirlivestoagreatextentwasalsosmaller10.

The descriptions noted down were of a very varied nature, rangingfrom incidentswhichappeared tobeverynastyandunpleasant to inci-dentswhichleftalessseriousimpression(atleastwhendescribedinthisshortform).Thattheincidentsweresovariedwasprobablypartlyduetotherelationshipsbetweenvictimsandperpetratorsbeingofverydifferentkinds,fromacasualsexualpartnertoaneighbour,workcolleagueordis-tantacquaintance.Someexamples:“triedtosabotagemywork”,“juststoodonthebalconyandscreamed”,“breathedheavilydownthephone”,“ruinedmycarandgarden”,“complainedfornoreason”,“droveovermydog”,“calledthepolicefornoreason”,“negativecommentsandremarks”,”shoutinginthetown”,“dirtysuggestions”,“silentonthephone”,“frozenout”,“threatenedwithaweapontwice”.

7) See table �� in appendix 3.8) See appendix �.9) Friend, acquaintance, casual sexual partner, neighbour, relative other than family member, current or previous work colleague, fellow student or the like.�0) See table �4 , appendix 3.

�4

STAlkINg BY AN UNkNOwN IS OFTEN OF A lESS SERIOUS NATURE

Manypeopleconnectstalkingwithbeingpersecutedbyastrangerinafright-eningmanner11.FromtheNationalCouncilsurvey,onecandrawtheconclu-sionthatthat2.7percentofthepopulationatsometimeintheirlivesonre-peatedoccasionshavebeenharassedbyanunknownperson.Onepercentoftherespondentshadbeensubjectedtosuchpersecutionduringthelastyear. Ontheotherhand,thefactthatthepersonisastrangerdoesnotmeanthatvictimshavebeenespeciallyfrightenedoraffectedcomparedtothosevictimisedbysomebodytheyknow.Thepercentagewhohavebeenveryfrightenedwaslowerthanamongthosein“closerelationships”,andthepercentagewhothoughtthattheharassmentaffectedtheirlivestoagreatextentwassignificantlylowerthanamongboththosein“closerelation-ships” and in “other relationships”. This could be due to the fact thatwhenthestalkerisunknownorastranger,itismuchlesscommonthathe/shehasphysicallypersecutedthevictim.Itisalsolesscommonthattheyhavebeensubjectedtothreatsandviolence.Thepercentageinthisgroupwhohavebeenharassedsolelybytelephoneisalsoverymuchlargerthanintheboththeothergroups.12

But even if they had been less subjected to “serious” harassment,threatsandviolence,itisstillpossibletodiscernfromthenotessituationsof a clearly unpleasant nature, especially if they have persisted for anylengthoftime:“Cancelledmydoctor’sappointment,phonedandpanted”,“followedmeoutdoors”,“pickedafight”,“phonedwhiledrunktothewomen’shelplineandsaidtherewasacrimegoingoninthehouse”,“phonedandaskedwhatIwaswearing,knewwhoIwas”,“madeindecentsexualremarksonthephone”,“creptaround,brokein”,“watchedthroughmywindow”,“gotintothegarden”,“gotajobcloseby”.

wOMEN MORE OFTEN SUBJECTED TO vIOlENCE AND MORE FRIghTENED ThAN MEN

Acomparisonbetweenthesexesshowsthatwomenexperiencedharass-ment as very frighteningmore than twice asoftenasmen.This canbepartlyexplainedbyagreaterpercentageofwomenwhohadbeensubjectedtoviolenceinconnectionwiththeharassment.Foralmostthirtypercentofthe women, harassment included elements of violence, while the corre-spondingpercentageamongthemenwasjustoverten.

ThE MOST COMMON MOTIvE wAS TO START OR RESTART A RElATIONShIP

Thosesurveyedwerealsoaskedwhattheybelievedtheaimoftheharass-mentwas.Itis,ofcourse,difficultforavictimtogiveareliableanswerto

��) The article referred to earlier by Martin Grann of DN-debatt also largely paints such a picture of the stalking phenomenon.

��) See table 4, p. ��

�5

this,astheonlypersonwhoreallyknowsthepurposeisthepersondoingtheharassing.Regardlessofthisuncertainty,thoseinterviewedwerestillaskedwhattheybelievedthepersecutormainlyhopedtoachieve. Fouroutoftenpeopleinthegroup“closerelationship”saidtheperse-cutor’saimwastocontinueorre-establisharelationship.Themostcom-monanswerintheothergroupswasthatthepersonwantedstartaloveaffair with them or that they did not know why they were being har-assed. Apart from the standard answer choices provided for the question,subjectswerealsogiventheopportunitytostateanyotheraimsfor theharassment.Thevarietyoftheseopen-endedrepliesshowswhatadiversephenomenonrepeatedharassmentis.Somepeoplewereaftermoney,oth-erswantedtogainorretaincustodyoftheirchildren.Somewereseenasclearly mentally ill and others lonely and generally persistent. Table 6shows that the standardanswer choicesmostoftengivenwere“donotknow”and“other”.

Table 6: The perpetrator’s primary aim with the harassment, according to type of relationship between victim and perpetrator; in percent

“Close “Other “Unknown/ relationship” relationship” stranger” All n = 90 n = �06 n = �08 n = 304

To continue or restart a relationship 40 8 3 �5

To start a love affair with me 5 �4 �� �4

To get revenge 9 �� 5 8

To humiliate or insult me �0 9 6 8

To affect me in carrying out my profession � 4 – �

Do not know �� �7 44 �5

Other �� �8 3� �7

AlMOST A ThIRD REPORTED ThE INCIDENTS TO ThE POlICE

Intotal,almostathirdofvictimsreportedtheharassmenttothepolice.ThisisapproximatelythesamepercentageasintheBritishstudy,whileintheAmericanstudy,approximatelyhalfreportedit.Thiscouldbebecausethe American study includes the stricter criteria that victims must havebeenfrightenedbytheharassment. IntheSwedishsurvey,thepercentagewhoreportedmatterstothepo-licedifferedsomewhataccordingtothekindofrelationshiptotheperpe-trator.Peoplewhohadbeenharassedbysomebodytheyhada“closerela-tionship”toreportedtheincidentsmoreoften;thistrendwasevenclearerwhenitinvolvedpeoplewhohadfiledreportsmorethanonce.Theexpla-nationispartlybecausepeopleinthegroup“closerelationship”werehar-assed fora longer timeandonmoreoccasions thanpeople inboth theothergroups.Theyquitesimplyhadmoreincidentsoveralongerperiod

�6

toreport.But itmightalsobeexplainedbythefact that theyhadbeensubjectedtothreatsandviolencetoagreaterextentthanothergroups.

FOUR OUT OF FIvE POlICE REPORTS DID NOT lEAD TO PROSECUTIONS

Fourfifthsoftheincidentsreportedtothepolicedidnotleadtoanyformofsanction.Inalmostallcases,thiswasbecausethereportdidnotresultinaprosecution. Thepercentageofharassmentwhich led toa convictionwashigheramongpeopleinthegroup“closerelationship”thaninboththeotherthegroups.Thisisprobablyexplainedbythefactthatthisgroupisgenerallysubjecttomoreseriousformsofharassment.Theseoffences,suchasforexamplewhenharassment includesviolence,havehigherpriority in thelegal systemandcan inmanycasesbe easier toprove than less seriouscasesofharassment. Incaseswheresomebodyisactuallyconvicted, theoffencesareoftenclassifiedasthreateningbehaviourorassault.Commonsentencesareprobationandprison.

hAlF ThOUghT ThE SITUATION IMPROvED AFTER REPORTINg IT TO ThE POlICE

Theintervieweeswhosaidthattheyhadreportedtheharassmentwerealsoaskediftheirsituationhadimprovedafterreportingit.Almosthalfthoughtthatthesituationhadimprovedorhadimprovedtosomeextentbyreport-ingit.Morepeopleinthegroup“closerelationship”thoughtthattheirsitu-ationhadimprovedthanintheothergroups.Thenumberofpeopleineachgroupinthesurveymaterialwhoreportedthesituation,however,wassmallenoughtoadvisecautionwhendrawingconclusionsbasedonthesefigures.

Table 7: Harassment reported to the police, reported cases which led to a conviction and reported cases which led to an improvement in the victim’s situation, according to type of relationship be-tween victim and perpetrator; in percent

“Close “Other “Unknown/ relationship” relationship” stranger” All n = 90 n = �06 n = �08 n = 304

At some time reported harassment to the police 4� �5 30 3�

Reported at least twice �6 �� 9 �5

Percentage of reported harassment which led to a conviction or summary punishment 35 �� �3 ��

The situation was improved by reporting it 4� �9 �8 3�

The situation was improved to some extent by reporting it �6 �9 9 �5

SOME ThOUghT ThE hARASSMENT wAS NOT SERIOUS ENOUgh TO REPORT TO ThE POlICE

Thosewhodidnotreporttothepoliceweregivenstandardanswerchoic-estosaywhytheydidnotreporttheincidents.Themostcommonanswer

�7

wasthattheydidnotthinktheharassmentwasseriousenough.Thiswastheresponsefromaquarterofthosewhodidnotreportit.Amongthosewhohada“closerelationship”totheperpetrator,itwas,however,justasfrequentthattheyleftthematterunreportedoutoffearforreprisals. Approximatelythesamepercentageofthethreethegroupsskippedthestandardanswerchoicesandsaidthattheydidnotreportmattersastheyhadsortedoutthesituationthemselves;acommonmethodwastothreatencallinginthepolice.

Table 8: Reason to not report harassment to the police among people who did not do so, according to type of relationship between victim and perpetrator; in percent

“Close “Other “Unknown/ relationship” relationship” stranger” All n = 90 n = �06 n = �08 n = 304

Did not dare report due to fear of reprisals �7 8 3 8

Did not think the harassment was serious enough �7 �� 30 �4

Did not consider harassment a criminal offence 4 5 3 4

Did not believe the police, prosecutor or court

would do anything 4 �3 �7 ��

“Managed the whole situation myself” 6 7 6 7

The alternative under the broken line is an open alternative given to those who stated “other” in the standard answer choices.

UNUSUAl TO SEEk hElP OUTSIDE CIRClE OF FAMIlY OR FRIENDS

Thosesurveyedwereaskediftheyhadsoughthelpfrompeopleotherthanfamily,friendsandacquaintancestoputastoptotheharassment.Nineoutoftenwhowerebeingharassedbyanunknownorstrangerhadnotsoughtanysuchhelp.Even in thegroupwhosoughtmosthelpoutsidefamilyorfriends,themajorityhadnotdoneso. Thepeople in thegroup“close relationship”whosoughthelp fromsupportorganisationswerealmostexclusivelywomenwhohadbeenhar-assedbyapreviouspartner. If theharassmenthadaconnectiontowork, itwasmoreusual thatpeopleaskedtheiremployerforhelp. Askingtelephonecompaniestotracecallsandcontactswithpsycholo-gistsareotherexamplesofhelpthathavebeensought. Incaseswherethoseinterviewedsoughthelp,theywereaskediftheythoughtthatingeneraltheyhadreceivedthehelptheyrequested.Takentogether,thereweresomewhatmorepeoplewhohadreceivedlittleorlesshelpthanthosewhoreceivedalotormorehelp13.

�3) A total of 6� people answered the question. Of interest would be whether the person was more satisfied with certain types of helper than others. Unfortunately, the sample is too small to make it possible to answer that question.

�8

hARASSMENT AFFECTS ThE lIvES OF MANY

Animportantquestionwashowmuchharmwassufferedbypeoplesub-jectedtorepeatedharassment.Thoseinterviewedwerethereforeaskedtoestimate how much the harassment had affected them. They were alsoaskediftheyhadtakensickleaveatanytimeduetotheharassment. Thedistributionoftheanswersshowsclearlythattheclosertherela-tionshipthevictimhadtotheperpetrator,thegreatereffecttheharassmenthadonthelifeofthevictim.Overthreequartersofthegroup“closerela-tionship”saidthattheirliveswereaffectedsomewhatorverymuch.Thecorrespondingfractionsinthegroups“otherrelationship”and“unknown”wereoverhalfandoveronethirdrespectively. Whenthequestionwasaskedwithfourstandardanswerchoices,thesituationwas theopposite for thosewhoansweredthat their liveswereaffectedsomewhatorverylittle.Lessthanaquarterofthepeopleinthegroup “close relationship”, under half in “other relationship” and twothirdsin“unknown”choseanyofthestandardanswers14. Withregardtosickleave,38percentofthepeopleinthegroup“closerelationship”hadatsometimetakensickleavebecauseoftheharassment.Tenpercentofthoseinthegroup“otherrelationship”andsixpercentinthegroup“unknown”hadtakensickleave.

Ex-DIRECTORY TElEPhONE NUMBERS AND ChANgES IN EvERYDAY ROUTINES

Thoseinterviewedwerealsoaskediftheyhadtakenanyofanumberofdifferentmeasurestostoptheharassment.Someofthemeasures,suchasswitchingtoanex-directorytelephonenumberorchangingeverydayrou-tineswererelativelysimple.Othermeasuresinvolvedconsiderableandde-mandingchangesintheirlives.Themostdrasticofthesemeasures,movingtoanotherpartofthecountry,hadbeentakenby17percentofthosewitha“closerelationship”totheperpetrator.

Table 9: Measures taken to stop the harassment, according to type of relationship between victim and perpetrator; in percent

“Close “Other “Unknown/ relationship” relationship” stranger” All n = 90 n = �06 n = �08 n = 304

Ex-directory telephone number 36 �4 �4 �7

Moved home 40 �� 6 �8

Moved to another part of the country �7 7 � 8

Restricted access to personal information 7 � 0 3

Applied for a restraining order �8 5 � 7

Of the above, order granted 88 80 �00 86

Changed daily routines 44 36 �8 36

�4) See table �4, appendix 3.

�9

Calculation of the prevalence of stalking in the entire populationTwopercentofthepeople insurveyweresubjectedduringtheprevioustwelvemonthstorepeatedharassmentwhichtheyexperiencedasquiteorveryfrightening.Scaleduptothepopulationofthecountry,thisequatestoover134000people.15,16

Ofthesepeople,40percent(52000people17)reportedharassmenttothepoliceonatleastoneoccasion.19percent(almost1000018)ofthesereportsledtoaconvictionorsummarypunishment19,56percent(almost3000020)wereshelvedand13percent(approximately650021)areyettobeconcluded.Inthecasesleadingtoconvictions,theoffenceswereoftenclassifiedasassaultandthreateningbehaviour. The52000peoplewhoreportedharassmenttothepolicecanbecom-paredtothealmost45000incidentsofthreateningbehaviourandover30000ofmolestationreportedtothepolicein2004.Itcanbeassumedthata large proportion of the incidents which led to these reports involvedstalking. Thefactthatinactualnumberstherewerenotmorethan82peopleoftheover4000interviewedforthesurveywhoexperiencedquiteorveryfrighteningharassmentmeansthatthescalingupcalculationsaboveshouldbeusedwithcaution. Forexample,the10000peopleinthepopulationwhosepolicereportsledtoaconvictionarerepresentedbysixpeopleinthesurveymaterial.Ifonemoreperson’sreporthadresultedinaconviction,thechangewouldequatetoover1600peopleinthepopulation.

�5) Between �05 650 and �63 �58 people with a 95-percent confidence interval.�6) The number of people in the population �8–79 years of age was 6 589 90� in �004, according

to Statistics Sweden (Statistiska centralbyrån, www.scb.se)�7) Between 34 36� and 70 576 people with a 95-percent confidence interval.�8) Between � 97� and �7 705 people with a 95-percent confidence interval.�9) Legal proceedings which can lead to a fine or suspended sentence.�0) Between �5 9�� and 43 ��� people with a 95-percent confidence interval.��) Between �34 and �� 983 people with a 95-percent confidence interval.

�0

Stalking of certain groupsInordertogainaclearerpictureofwork-relatedstalking,theNationalCoun-cilcontactedmembersofcertainprofessionsconsideredtobeinthehigh-riskzone.Thegroups contactedweremembersofparliament,prosecutorsandpsychiatrists.Apartfromthehighriskfactor,thesegroupswerechosenbe-causeitwasrelativelyeasyfortheNationalCounciltoobtaincontactdetailsforthem.22Thosewhoatsometimeintheirliveshadbeensubjectedtoharass-mentonatleasttwooccasionsbythesamepersonwereaskedtofillinanIn-ternetquestionnaire.Thequestionnairewasfilledinanonymously. InformationabouttheInternetquestionnairewassenttoeverymem-berofeachprofession.Responseswerereceivedfromatotalof188peo-ple:58prosecutors,31membersofparliamentand99psychiatrists. Itisimportanttostressherethatthiswasnotaprevalencesurveyanditisthereforenotpossibletodrawanyconclusionsfromitregardinghowcommonstalkingisinthedifferentprofessions.TheNationalCouncilonlyrequestedthosewithpersonalexperienceofstalkingtocompletetheques-tionnaire.Toobtainapictureoftheprevalenceofstalkinginthesegroupswould have meant the National Council requesting responses from thewholeofeachsurveygroup,whethertheyhadbeenstalkedornot.Withthemethodchosen,therewasnowayofknowingwhetherthosenotan-sweringhavenoexperienceofstalkingorwhethertheydidnotrespondforotherreasons.Aprevalencesurveywouldtakemoretimethanallowedforwhenthesurveywascommissioned. ItisalsoworthpointingoutthattheonlythingtheNationalCouncilsur-veycandescribeistowhatextentrepresentativesofthesethreeprofessionshavebeensubjectedtorepeatedharassmentatsometime.Thestudydoesnotprovideanyinformationregardingtowhatextenttheyhavebeenharassedonrepeatedoccasionsbydifferentpeopleduringtheirworkinglives.

CONTACT BY TElEPhONE, MAIl AND lETTERS ThE MOST COMMON

Themostcommonformofstalkercontactwastelephone,e-mailorletters;90percentoftherespondentswerecontactedintheseways.Athirdhadbeensubjectedtophysicalpersecutionorsurveillance.Almost60percenthadbeenthreatened,butphysicalviolencewasunusual;only14percentofthe respondents had been subjected to it. This meant that most of thethreatsofviolencewereneveractedupon(81percentofthosethreatenedhadnotbeensubjectedtoviolence).

ThREE QUARTERS OF ThOSE FRIghTENED hAD BEEN ThREATENED

Nearlytwothirdsoftherespondentshadbeenquiteorveryfrightenedbytheharassment.��) Prosecutors and members of parliament were contacted by e-mail, psychiatrists by letter.

��

Thefactorswhichledtoincreasedfearincludedtheperpetratorthreaten-ingtherespondentorhis/herfamily(almostthreequartersofthosefright-enedhadbeenthreatened,asopposedtoaquarterofthenon-frightened)andthattheperpetratorhadwatchedorphysicallycontactedtherespond-ent. The percentage who were frightened differs somewhat between theprofessions.Thosewhoweremostsubjectedtoharassmentwhichfright-ened them were the prosecutors and psychiatrists. Harassment of thesegroupsalsoincludedthreatstoagreaterextentthanforthemembersofparliament.

ExAMPlES OF whAT hARASSMENT CAN MEAN

Someoftherespondentsusedthe‘inyourownwords’sectionoftheques-tionnairetodescribemoreconcretelywhathadhappened.Thisprovidedaclearerpictureofwhattheyhadexperienced.Thedescriptionsshowthateven the incidentsexperiencedasnotespecially frighteningare inmanycasesverydistressingandunpleasant:

“Itwasmostlynight-timetelephonecalls,sometimesaconstantstreamofthem.”(psychiatrist)

“ContactedthecourtwhenIwastoappear.AskedviamydepartmentheadtobetoldofallthecasesIhadhandled.ReportedmetotheProsecutorGeneralforprofessionalmisconduct.Visitedtheprosecutors’officeanddemandedtomeetme.”(prosecutor)

“Succeededinfindingoutmyunlistedtelephonenumber.Phonedandshoutedthatshewouldgetmeforallthewrongtreatment.Somecallswereansweredbythechildrenwhichmadethemanxious.Thelanguagewasfullofswearwordsandinsults.”(psychiatrist)

“Sentconfusedletterstomywife’sworkplace.Keepstrackofmyweddinganniversaryetc.”(psychiatrist)

“Learnedtoimitatemyvoiceanduseitinhealth-carecontextsonthetelephone.Sexualgroaningonthetelephonetomywife’sworkplace.Foundoutmychildren’snamesandmadesuggestivesexualremarkstomyteenagedaughtersonmyhometelephone.”(psychiatrists)

Asmentionedabove,forthosewhowerefrighteneditwascommonthatharassmentincludedphysicalpersecutionorexpressthreats.Oneprosecu-tor,forexample,wrotethefollowing:

“HasreportedmeseveraltimesforcrimesI’vecommittedwhileonduty.Hehascalleduponmyentryphoneandhasbeenoutsidemydoorathomeandwrittenmynameonthedoorthereandhasdonethesamethingonmydooratwork.”

��

Herearesomeexamplesofthemostseriouscasesoffrighteningpersecu-tion,describedinmoredetailbypsychiatristsasfollows:

“Repeatedconstantly‘IpraytoGodthatyouwillbemurdered’.Slanderedmeonfrontofotheremployees,rushedinwithoutanappoint-mentanddemandedasicknoteonthespot.Wasgenerallyabusive.Hehadsomeconnectionstocriminalcircleswhichworriedme.”

“Threateningletters,recordingswithsexualcontents,threatenstorapemeandkillmeandmychildren.ThemaninquestionwreckedfurnitureinthewardhewasinonmorethanoneoccasionwhenIdidnotgivehimattention.”

The psychiatrists’ descriptions of what they experienced in cases wheretheywerefrightened,illustratesclearlythattheyencounterseriouslydis-turbedpeopleintheirwork.

EvEN SITUATIONS wIThOUT ThREATS CAN BE FRIghTENINg

Mostofthosewhowerefrightenedbywork-relatedharassmentwereactu-allythreatened.Butthereweresomewhowerefrightenedeventhoughtheperpetrator expressed no direct threats. This group consisted mostly ofprosecutors.It isreasonablethatassumethatinmanycasesprosecutorsknowenoughabouttheperpetrator’scriminalbackgroundtoseethesitu-ationasthreateningevenifnodirectthreatswereexpressed.Theprosecu-torsarealsothegroupamongthosesurveyedwhosetaskmostoftenin-volvesmakingdecisionswhichhavenegativeconsequencesforindividuals.Hereaprosecutordescribesthiskindofsituation:

“Justbythewayhestaredatmethroughoutthetrialforseveraldaysandbythemoreorlessveileddescriptionsofwhattodotopeopleinauthoritywritteninletterstoprisoninmates–letterswhichheknewthatIwouldhaveaccessto.”

REvENgE SEEN AS A COMMON MOTIvE FOR PERSECUTION BY ThOSE FRIghTENED

Thosewhowerefrightenedoftenthoughtthattheperpetratorwasoutforrevenge (just over a third of the people, compared with a sixth amongthosewhohadnotbeenfrightened).Ifonerelatesthistotheirprofessions,theprosecutorswerethegroupwhomostoftenbelievedthattheperpetra-torwantedrevenge.Thepsychiatristsalsobelievedthatrevengewastheprimarymotive.Themembersofparliamentbelievedthattheperpetratormostlywantedtoinfluencewhattheydidaselectedofficials. Almosttenpercentthoughtthattheywerepersecutedbecausetheper-petratorwantedtostartaloveaffair.Itwasprimarilymembersofparlia-mentwhosaidthiswasamotive,andinmostcasestheyhadthenotbeenfrightened.

�3

hAlF OF ThOSE FRIghTENED hAD REPORTED ThE INCIDENTS TO ThE POlICE

Thosewhowerefrightenedreportedtheincidentstothepolicemoreoftenthanthosewhohadnotbeenfrightened(circa50and30percentrespec-tively).Thethreemostcommonreasonsthatthosefrighteneddidnotre-porttheincidentswerethattheydidnotbelievethatitwouldleadtoanyactionbythepolice,thattheydidnotwantattentionandthattheydidnotadjudgetheharassmenttobeacriminaloffence.

REPORTINg INCIDENTS TO ThE POlICE IMPROvED ThE SITUATION MORE OFTEN FOR PROSECUTORS ThAN FOR ThE OThER gROUPS

Ofthosewhoreportedincidentstothepolice,almosthalffeltthatthesituationhadimproved,atleasttosomeextent.Thepercentagewhofeltthatthesituationimprovedwasalmostdoublefortheprosecutorscomparedtoothergroups.

MANY hElPED CONSIDERABlY BY ThEIR EMPlOYER

Afairnumberofthosewhowerefrightenedhadsoughthelpfromtheiremployer(41percentcomparedto12percentforthemwhohadnotbeenfrightened).Overhalfofthesealsoconsideredthattheyhadreceivedhelp.Here,however,thereweresignificantdifferencesbetweenthethreeprofes-sions.Themembersofparliamentweremostcontentwiththehelptheyreceived,followedbytheprosecutors.

UNlISTED TElEPhONE NUMBERS AND ChANgES IN DAIlY ROUTINES

Thosewhohadnotbeenfrighteneddidnotconsiderthatharassmenthadaffectedtheirlivesespeciallymuch.Itwasalsounusualthattheyhadmadechangesintheirlivesasareactiontotheharassment. Thosewhowerefrightenedwereaffectedmoreandmademorechang-esintheirlives.42percentofthesethoughtthattheincidentsaffectedtheirlives,andalmostallofthesehadtakencounter-measures.Themostcom-monweretoobtainanex-directorytelephonenumber(46percent)and/orchangedailyroutines(38percent).

ANOThER NATIONAl COUNCIl SURvEY ShOwS PREvAlENCE wIThIN SOME PROFESSIONS

AnotherstudycarriedoutbytheNationalCouncil23lookedatserioushar-assment, threatsandviolencedirectedatpeople in theenforcementandlegalsectors24.Thatstudyhadasomewhatdifferentfocusanddidnotin-clude therequirement forrepeatedharassmentby thesameperpetrator.

�3) The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention Report (Brottsförebyggande rådet – Brå) �005:�8.

�4) Coast guard, customs and excise, tax service officials, police including security police, prosecutors, judges, lay judges and officials of the Swedish Enforcement Administration (Kronofogdemyndigheten) charged with debt collection were included in the study.

�4

Ontheotherhand,therewasarequirementthatitsaimwastoaffecttheworkoftheseofficialsandthattheperpetratorwastohavehadamotiveandtheabilitytoactuponthethreatsmade. Thestudyshowedthattwelvepercentofallofficialshadbeensubjectedtoseriousharassment,threatsorviolentsituationsatsometimeduringtheoneandahalfyearsstudied. OfficialsoftheTaxBoardweretheleastvictimisedoftheprofessionsstudied(threepercent),andofficialsoftheSwedishEnforcementAdminis-tration(Kronofogdemyndigheten)themostvictimised(20percent). TheconclusiontheNationalCouncildrewfromthereportwasthatthislevelmustbeconsideredhigh,andthatthephenomenonmustbetakenmoreseriouslythanuptonow.

ThREE IN-DEPTh INTERvIEwS

Surveyscangiveanoverallpictureofhowoftendifferentprofessionsarepersecutedandharassed,thenatureofthepersecution,howtheincidentsaffectvictimsandhowmanyarereportedtothepolice.Theycannot,how-ever, provide detailed descriptions of individual stalking situations andhowthevictimsexperiencethewholesequenceofevents. TheNationalCouncil thereforecarriedout in-depth interviewswiththreepeoplewhoweresubjected to long-termpersecution.Wechose tointerview only people who had been subjected to serious, work-relatedstalking.Thereasonforthiswasprimarilythatnotmuchlighthasbeensheduponthisformofstalkingsofar.Thecaseswerenotselectedtogivea representative picture of stalking as suffered by different professionalgroups.Theaimwasinsteadtoprovideamorevividdescriptionofhowlong-term stalking is experienced when it is really distressing, and howmuchhelpthevictimsconsidertheyreceived. Thoseinterviewedwereapolitician,acase-workerandaradioemployee.Theradiomanwaspersecutedbyananonymousperson,thecase-workerbyanex-clientandpoliticianbyatownresidentwhothoughtthatsheshould“payforthepersecutionwhichheconsideredsocietywassubjectinghimto”. Whatthethreehadincommonwasthattheirliveswereaffectedtoamajorextentbythepersecution.Allthreereportedmatterstothepoliceseveral timesandtodifferentdegreestheyfelt thatthe legalsystemhadfailedtheminsomeway.Ontheotherhand,theyallreceivedstrongsup-portfromtheiremployers.Theiraccountsareinappendix4.

Stalking celebrities IthasnotbeenpossiblefortheNationalCounciltostudymoresystemati-cally thekindof stalkingoften reported in themassmedia,namely thepersecutionofshowbusinesspersonalitiesandotherpublicpeople.Inmostofthesecases,theperpetratordoesnothaveanymalevolentintention.Thepersecutionis insteadawaytotrytoachievecontactandsomekindof

�5

relationshipwiththevictim.Theresponsesfromthemembersofparliamentshowedthatsomeofthemhadbeenstalkedbypeopleinthiscategory.Inmostcases,thevictimsdidnotthinktheincidentswereespeciallyfrightening. Inordertoobtainsomeinformationaboutthenatureandprevalenceof this kind of stalking, the National Council interviewed two securitymanagerswhoworkwithcelebritiesandotherpublicpeople.whERE IS ThE lINE BETwEEN DEDICATED FANS AND STAlkERS?

Accordingtoonesecuritymanageratamajorperformingartists’agencyandconcertarranger,repeatedharassmentdoesoccurinshowbusiness.However,drawingthe linebetweenadedicatedfanandastalker isnotalwayseasy. Those interviewed believe that stalkers are often lonely people whogivetheirlivesmeaningbytotallyfocusinguponanartist.Thiscouldbeexpressedbythemfollowingtheartists’toursaroundthecountryortheworld,seekingcontactwiththeartiststowishthemluck,givethemflow-ersetcetera. Itwasnoted,however,thattheirbehaviourcouldchangefortheworseiftheyfeltthattheywerenotacknowledgedbytheartist,orwerebeingpushedasideor treatedbadly.Onetacticusedbysecuritystaff is to letthesepeoplebelievethatitisnottheartistbutthesecuritystaffwhoaredenying themanycontact.Theydescribe theirworkasabalancingact,whereeachcaseisjudgedonitsownsetofcircumstances. Attentionstartstobecomeaproblemwhenpeopleseekoutartistsintheirhomes.Exposureinthemassmediaseemstoexacerbatethisprob-lem;themorethemassmediafocusuponartists’privatelives,themoreattentiontheygetfromdedicatedadmirers.Accordingtothesecurityman-agers,mostartistesknowthisandsomealsochoosetonotgiveinterviewsofthe‘at-home-with’kindinordertoavoidharassment. Thesecuritymanagersalsobelievethatnewspaperreportingofstalk-ersandtheproblemstheycauseissometimesexaggeratedandspeculative–inordertosellmorenewspapers.Incaseswhereartistesarebeinghar-assedbypeopletheypreviouslyhada“closerelationship”with,themassmediahavesometimeschosentodescribethepeoplestalkingthecelebritiesasunknowns. Directthreatsarealwaysreportedtothepolice.Moresubtleformsofharassment from dedicated fans are experienced by artists in differentways.Securitystaffdiscusswiththeartistwherethelineistobedrawn.

REPORTINg TO ThE POlICE CAUSES BIg hEADlINES IN ThE MEDIA

TheNationalCouncilinterviewedthesecuritymanagersattwoSwedishTVcompanies.Atboth, repeatedharassmentof employees is seen as aproblem.OneTVcompanysaidthatatleastonceaweekaTVpresenter,newsreaderorotherpersonseenonTVisharassed.

�6

Thisismostlyintheformofe-mailsandlettersbutsometimespeopledocometothestudiostoseekcontact.Someharassmentiscarriedoutbypeo-plewhoareangryoverthecontentofaprogrammeorwhowanttoexpressracistorpoliticalopinions.Justascommon,however,iswhenpeoplebelievetheyhavearelationshipwithsomebodytheyoftenseeonTV. Bothcompaniesresorttoestablishedcoursesofactionwhensomebodyisharassed.Theseincludedifferentstrategiesfordifferentkindsofharass-ment.If,forexample,somebodystartssendingrepeatede-mailsorletterstothesameperson,justkeepinganeyeonthesituationcanbesufficient.Ifitthenchangescharacter,thentheremaybereasontobemorevigilant.AtoneTVcompanytheyusesecurityconsultantswhocarryoutriskanal-ysesandsupplybodyguards,alarmsandthelike. Companypolicyonreportingmatterstothepolicediffersbetweentheorganisations.Atone,thepolicyistoreportallcasesofharassmenttothepoliceiftheyincludeanexpressedthreat.Attheother,theyreportonlysomecases.Theyknowfromexperiencethattabloidnewspapersheadlinesuchreportsontheirdisplaybills,whichmeansthatthepersonmaybesubjectedtoevenmoreharassmentbyevenmorepeople. Both companies’ representatives consider that all cases of harassmentcometotheirattention.Asharassmentissoclearlylinkedtotheirbusiness,itisnaturalthatvictimsreceivehelpfromtheiremployers.Staffhavealsobeeninformedthatthisisthecourseofactiontheyshouldtakeiftheyneedhelp.

�7

Legislation and its application in Sweden LegislationhOw OFFENCES ARE ClASSIFIED vARIES – SOME ACTIONS NOT CRIMINAl OFFENCES

Stalkingcanincludebothcriminalandnon-criminalacts.Thereisnosharpborderlinebetweenthembutmoreofaborderzonesusceptibletodifferinginterpretationsbyindividualpoliceofficersandprosecutors. InSwedenthereisnospecificstalkingoffenceasinothercountries.Butthereareaseriesotheroffenceswhichcanbeinvokedhere,forexample,molestation,criminaldamage,insultingbehaviour,threateningbehaviour,assault,breachofpeaceinthehome,interferenceinjudicialproceedingsandnon-compliancewitharestrainingorder. Ifthestalkerisacloserelativeorpreviouscloserelativeofthevictim,theoffencesofgrossviolationofintegrityandgrossviolationofawom-an’sintegritymaybeinvoked.OneconditionisthattheindividualactsarecrimesagainstthepersoninaccordancewithSections3,4or6ofthePenalCode,whichmeans,forexample,thatcriminaldamageandinsultingbe-haviour fall outside the sectionof law.Another requirement is that theoffencesarepartofrepeatedviolationofthevictim’sintegrityandarein-tendedtoseriouslydamagethevictim’sself-esteem.

Figure �: Criminal stalking behaviour in Sweden

Actswhichoftenoccurwhenapersonissubjectedtorepeatedharassmentbutwhich in Sweden canbe adjudged as non-criminal are for exampleloiteringbythevictim’shome,drivingacartoandfrooutsidethehome,lookinginthroughthewindows,appearinginplaceswherethevictimusu-

Penal Code

Restraining orders

Molestation, threatening behaviour,

gross violation of integrity etc.

(Sect. 4)Assault (Sect. 3)

Non-compliance with restraining order

Diverse offences,e.g. interference in

judicial proceedings. (various sections)

Criminal damage etc.(Sect. 12)

Sexual molestation etc.(Sect. 6)

Insulting behaviour etc.(Sect. 5)

�8

allygoes,followingthevictimtoworkandsendingletterswithunpleasantcontents.Theseactsoftendonotadduptomolestation25. Foranacttobeclassifiedasmolestation,therehastobe“recklesscon-duct”.26Theacthastobeobjectivelyadjudgedtobereckless,ajudgementwhichistoreflectprevailingpublicopinion.Theperpetratordoesnothavetoagreewiththisjudgement. Apersonwhoissubjectedtostalkingcanapplyforarestrainingorderagainsttheperpetrator.Iftherestrainingorderisgranted,itmeansthattheperpetratorisbannedfromvisitingorinotherwayscontactingthevictim,orfromfollowingthevictim.27Apersonwhodoesnotcomplywithare-straining order may be convicted of violation of a restraining order andsentencedtoafineortoamaximumofoneyearinprison.Iftheviolationisconsideredminor,theperpetratorisnotadjudgedtobecriminallyliable.28

Arestrainingordermaybeissuedifthereisareasonableriskthatthepersontowhomtheorderapplieswillcommitoffencesagainst,victimiseorinotherwaysseriouslyharassthepersonwhomtheorderisintendedtoprotect.There arenoprovisions regarding the relationshipbetween thepartiesorpreviousconduct.Neitheristherearequirementthatacriminaloffencemusthavebeencommitted,evenifthisisacircumstancewhichistakenintospecialconsiderationwhenassessingtherisk.Restrainingorderlegislationshouldthusbeabletocoverstalking.

IMPOSINg PENAlTIES

Whilestayingwithinthescaleofpenaltiesfortheoffence,thecourtistoimposeapenaltybasedupon“theaccumulatedcriminalculpability”.29Whenassessingcriminalculpability,specialconsiderationistobegiventoanyinjury,violationordangercausedbytheacts,whattheaccusedknewaboutoroughttohaveknownaboutthisandtheintentionsormotivesbehindtheacts. In its assessment, the court is toalso consider in each casewhetherthereareaggravatingcircumstances.Specialconsiderationistobegiventowhethertheperpetratorintendedthatthecrimeshouldhavesignificantlymoreseriousconsequencesthanitactuallyhad,whethertheperpetratordisplayedexceptionalrecklessness,whethertheperpetratorexploitedan-otherperson’svulnerablepositionortheirinabilitytoprotectthemselves,whethertheperpetratorgrosslyexploitedhis/herpositionorabusedaspe-cialtrust,whethertheperpetratorincitedotherstoparticipateintheof-fenceinanyway,whethertheoffencearosefromcriminalactivitieswhichhavebeenespeciallyplannedorcarriedoutonalargescale,whetherthe

�5) The examples are from referral submissions by the Swedish Security Police, the Public Prosecutor’s Development Centre, Göteborg and from interviews with Detective Chief Inspector Bo Wickström and District Court Judge Mats Jender.

�6) Section 4, subsection 7, The Penal Code.�7) Subsection �, Restraining Orders Act (�988:688).�8) Subsection �4, Restraining Orders Act (�988:688).�9) Section �9, subsection �, The Penal Code.

�9

motivefortheoffencewastoharassapersonduetohis/herethnicback-ground,sexualpreferenceorthelikeandwhethertheoffencewascommit-tedtodisruptthesecurityandtrustofachildinitsrelationshiptoaclose-lyrelatedperson.30 Inacaseofconductwhichcanbedescribedasstalking,theremaybereasontoconsideroneormoreoftheaggravatingcircumstancespresent-ed.Thereis,however,noaggravatingcircumstancewhichespeciallyem-phasisestherepetitiveorsystematicelementofthecrime.

The report of the Administration of Justice Committee In2004,theLiberalPartyinSwedenproposedinaparliamentarymotiononstalking(motion2004/05:JU412p.15): •thatthegovernmentproduceaproposalforanewclassofoffencewhich

coverstheoffencescurrentlyincludedingrossviolationofintegrityandgrossviolationofawoman’sintegritybutwhichwouldnotde-mandacloserelationshipbetweenthevictimandtheperpetrator.

•thatthereisaneedforbetter,quickerandmoreeffectivemeasuresagainstthistypeofconduct.Atanearlystage,thepolicemustacttopreventcontinuedpersecution.

•thatprotectionforthosesubjectedtostalkingmustbestrengthened,includingbetteropportunitiesforthepolicetocollaboratewithpsychi-atricservicesinpinpointingandmonitoringpeoplewhoonrepeatedoccasionshavefollowed,watchedorharassedanotherperson.

TheAdministrationofJusticeCommitteeconsideredintheirreportonthemo-tion31thatmoreinformationisneededonhowcommonsystematicpersecutionisbeforetheneedfornewlegislationandotheractioncanbeassessed.Theyre-ferredtotheplannedcommissionfromtheMinistryofJusticetotheNationalCounciltosurveytheprevalenceandnatureoftheproblem.Whilewaitingforthis,thecommitteeproposedthatthemotion(thepartdealingwithstalking)berejected.InApril2005,Parliamentrejectedthispartofthemotion.

ThE vIEwS OF REFERRAl BODIES ON ThE NEED FOR lEgISlATION

Whendraftingthemotion,theAdministrationofJusticeCommitteereferredthemattertoaround20organisationsandaskedfortheirviews.Thesewereprimarilyfromdifferentsectorsofthelegalsystem,representativesofpsychi-atricservicesandcrimevictims.Therewereapproximatelythesamenumberofbodieswhichconsideredthatthereisaneedforneworrevisedlegislationasthosethatdidnotbelievethisorwerenon-committal.Thenon-committalbodiesthoughtthatdataontheproblem’sprevalencewasinsufficienttobe

30) Section �9, subsection �, The Penal Code.3�) Report �004/05:JuU�0 Stalking.

30

abletoexpressanopinion.ThePublicProsecutoralsoquestionedtheneedforachangeinthelawandreferredtothechangesinthescaleofpunish-ment for molestation and threatening behaviour, introduced in 1993.These provided increased opportunities for repeated, systematic harass-mentandthreatstobeconsideredwhenimposingpunishment.Therewereprimarilytwoinadequaciesincurrentlegislationwhichthereferralbodiespointedout.One is that thecriminalculpabilityrequire-mentsforthreateningbehaviourormolestationdidnotpayenoughatten-tiontotherepeatedpatternofstalkingincidents.Theotheristhatindi-vidualactionswhichontheirowncannotbeconsideredcriminalcanstillbeveryfrighteningifpartofarepeatedpattern,andthereforeoughttobepunishable.PROPOSED CRIMINAlISATION AlTERNATIvES

Theproposalsforchangesinthelawmadebythereferralbodiescanbedividedintotwogroups.Onegroupofproposalswantthelawtoclearlystatethatcriminalculpabilityforlessseriousoffences,suchasmolestation,istobeincreasedifitispartofarepeatedpattern.Theothergroupwanttomakeitpossibletopenalisecertainkindsofconduct,currentlynotpun-ishable,iftheyarepartofarepeatedpattern.

HIGHER CRIMINAL CULPABILITY FOR REPEATED LESS SERIOUS OFFENCES

Inordertomakeitpossibletogivegreaterconsiderationtorepeatedbe-haviourpatternswhenimposingsentences,someofthereferralbodiessug-gestedcriminalisationonthepatternoftheoffencesgrossviolationofin-tegrityandgrossviolationofawoman’sintegrity.Someofthemconsideredthattheapplicationofgrossviolationofintegrityoffencesshouldbeex-tendedbyremovingtherequirementforacloserelationship.Otherspro-posednewpunishmentregulationsusingtheseoffencesasmodels.

CRIMINALISE BEHAVIOUR NOT CURRENTLY PUNISHABLE

Somereferralbodiesmadethepointthattheremayalsobeaneedtopenalisepatternsof repeated incidentswhicharenotpunishable individually, if to-gethertheyconsititutepersecutionofanotherperson.Onesuggestedwaytoproceedwouldbetoextendthedefinitionofmolestation.Somebodies,how-ever,pointoutthattherecouldbeproblemsinformulatingandapplyingsucharulewhenitcomestoestablishingborderlinesandevidencerequirements. TheCommissiononViolenceAgainstWomen,whowerebehindtheproposaltointroducetheoffencegrossviolationofawoman’sintegrity,madeasimilarproposalintheir1995reportwhichwasrejectedbyparlia-ment32.ThisCommissionproposedthatthenewviolationofintegrityof-fenceshouldalsoincludeincidentsofpsychologicalassaultnotcurrently

3�) SOU �995:60 ‘Women’s Integrity’ and Parliamentary report �997/98:��5

3�

punishable,iftogethertheyconstitutedsystematicviolation.Theproposalwasrejectedforthefollowingreasons: “Thereisnoclearargumentintheproposalforwhichactions,apartfromviolenceorthreats,aretobeincludedinthestipulation.Theso-calledlegalityprinciplestatesthatthepunishableareaistohaveclearlydefinedborders. Punishment provisions are to be so clearly formulated that itshouldbepossibletodecideinadvancewhichactionsarepunishableandwhicharenot.Thegovernmentconsidersthereisaclearriskthatapunish-mentprovisionaimedatmildpsychologicalassaultwouldbetooimpreciseandencompassamuchtoovaguecollectionofactionstobeacceptable.Thelegalityprincipleisthusagainstsuchregulation---.”33,34

Some practitioners’ views on legislation and its applicationInordertosupplementtheviewsandlawproposalsintheAdministrationofJusticeCommitteereport,35theNationalCouncilspoketothreerepre-sentativesof the legal system,whoallhave longexperienceofworkingwithstalkingissuesindifferentways:apoliceofficer,aprosecutorandajudge.Thepicturetheyprovideinmanywaysresemblesthepicturewhichisseeninothercountries.36

Acommonviewoftheapplicationofthelawinstalkingcasesisthatthepoliceandprosecutorsoftendonotseeanoverallpictureoftheperse-cution.Onereasonforthisisthewaylawsfocusuponindividual,concreteincidents,whichaffectstheworkofthepoliceandprosecutors.(Anexcep-tionisingrossviolationofintegritycaseswherethereisaclearlydefinedduty to take in the complete picture.) A lack of knowledge of stalkingwithinthepoliceisalsocitedasanexplanation.Ifthepolicearenotawarethatpersecutionandharassmentoftenhavearepeatedpattern,itcanmeanthatthepolicereportsandquestioningarefocuseduponthelatestincidenttobereported.Thismeansthatquestionsaboutpreviousincidentsdonotbecomeautomaticandthatnodocumentationoftheprevalenceofharass-menttakesplace,notevenwhenitistheinjuredpartytellingthestory.Theresultisthatevenifthepreliminaryinvestigationreportsmentionpreviousincidents,theyareseldominvestigatedinawaythatallowstheprosecutortoproveacrime.

33) Proposition �997/98:55, s. 7834) Problems and principles for criminalisation are also discussed in Lernestedt, C. �003 35) Report �004/05:JuU�0 ‘Stalking’.36) Detective Chief Inspector Bo Wickström, Chief District Prosecutor James von Reis, the Public Prosecutor’s Development Centre, Göteborg and District Court Judge Mats Jender, Södra Roslag District Court.

3�

EvIDENCE

All threeof thepeoplementionedconsider that stalkingcaseshaveevi-denceproblems.Inthecasesprosecuted,thereisoftennootherevidencethantheinjuredparty’saccountofevents.Thisleadstoa‘mywordagainstyours’situationwheretheprosecutorcanhavedifficultyinprovingacrim-inaloffence. Stalkingbehaviourtypicallyincludesactionswhereitisnotpossibleforthepolicetoprovewhotheperpetratoris,forexamplewhoscratchedthepaintworkonthevictim’scar?Butalackofsupportingevidencecanalsobeduetoalackofinclinationtogetevidence.Thelowcriminalcul-pability of these offences can also mean that cases receive low prioritywhenallocatinginvestigationresources.Inpracticethiscanmeanthatthepolicedonotsecureevidenceofmolestationbyfindingoutwhohasthee-mailaddressfromwhichthee-mailsarebeingsentorwhohasthemobiletelephonenumberfromwhichthecallsarecoming.

33

DiscussionTheNationalCouncilstudyshowsthatmanypeopleinSwedenhavebeensubjectedtorepeatedharassmentatsometimeintheirlivesandthatsuchharassment canbevery frighteningandunpleasant for thevictims.Thestudyalsoshowsthatthehelpvictimsreceivefromthelegalsystemandotherpublicbodiesinordertopreventcontinuedharassmentandalleviatethedamageitcausesneedstobeimproved. TheNationalCouncilwillrefrain,however,frommakingprecisepro-posalsforchangesinlegislationandothermeasures.Withregardtoanychanges in the law, this isprimarilybecause therehasnotbeenenoughtimetobothdescribethecurrentlegalsituationandpossiblechangesinthelaw.Inaddition,thequestionofwhethertheneedforchangesinthelawinthisareahasalsobeentakenupbytheCommitteeonThreatsandVio-lencetoElectedOfficials.TheNationalCouncilassessmentinconsultationwiththisCommitteeisthatthelegalissuestakenupinthetworeportswillgainfrombeingevaluatedinacontext.TheCommitteeistoissueitsreportinApril2006. Evenwhenitcomestootherpossiblemeasures,theshorttimeallowedforthereporthasmeantthattheNationalCouncilhashadtolimititselftopoint-ingout“areasforattention”whichmayneedstrengthening.Whatexactlyistobedoneandhowitistobeimplementedneedsfurtherinvestigation.

wIDESPREAD MENTAl SUFFERINg REvEAlED

Thatalargenumberofwomenaresubjecttorepeated,systematicviolationbytheirpartnerorex-partnerintheformofviolence,threatsandharass-menthasbeenobservedmoreandmoreduringthe1990s.TheNationalCouncilsurveyaddsfurtherdatatothepreviousstudiesinthisarea.37Thenumberofwomenwhointhelastyearonrepeatedoccasionshavebeensubjectedtoviolence,threatsorharassmentbytheirpartnerorex-partnercanbeestimatedfromtheNationalCouncilsurveytoalmost30000.Itisapowerfulpictureofpsychological terrorwhichappears fromboththequantitativeanalysisofwomenvictims’responsestothetelephonesurveyandfromthefurthercommentsthesewomengaveintelephoneinterviews. TheNationalCouncilsurveyalsoshows,however,thatit isnotun-commonthatsomepeoplearesubjectedtorepeatedandsometimeslong-termharassmentbypeoplewhotheydonothaveorhaveneverhadacloserelationship with. This may be a neighbour, an acquaintance, a persontheyhadacasualsexualrelationshipwith,aworkcolleagueorsomebodytheymetinawork-relatedsituation.Inthesecases,harassmentrarelyin-volvesviolence,unlikethatsufferedbywomenincloserelationships.But

37) For example, Lundgren, E., Heimer, G., Westerstrand, J. and Kalliokoski, A-M. (�00�) and National Council (Brå) report �003:�.

34

theNationalCouncilstudyclearlyshowsthateventheseformsofharass-mentcanbeexperiencedaspsychologicallyverydistressfuliftheycontinueforalongtime. Aspecialgroupofvictimswithinthiscategoryarethosewhoaresub-jectedintheirworkinglives.ThesemakeupasmallpercentageofallthevictimsintheNationalCounciltotalsurveywhohadbeensubjectedtothistypeofharassment.Buttherearesomeprofessionswhichrunagreaterriskofbeingsubjectedtorepeatedharassment.TheNationalCouncilstudyofexperiencesamongprosecutors,membersofparliamentandpsychiatristsshowsthattheirprofessionscansometimesleadtopersecutionofaveryfrighteningnature. ThelastcategoryofrepeatedharassmentandpersecutionhighlightedbytheNationalCouncilsurveyiswheretheperpetratorisunknownorastranger.The survey shows that repeatedharassment in this category isoftenofa lessseriouskindanddoesnotaffect thevictims’ lives toanygreat extent. Often the victims feel that they can manage the situationthemselveswhileitisinprogress.However,oneoftheNationalCouncilin-depthinterviewsshowsthatbeingsubjectedtothreateningpersecutionbyananonymouspersonoveralongperiodcanbeexperiencedasveryunpleasantandfrightening–andgiveafeelingofpowerlessness. Thiscategoryalsoincludesthetypeofpersecutionoftenreportedinthemassmedia,i.e.caseswherethevictimsareshowbusinesspersonali-tiesorotherpublicfigures,harassedbysomebodywhoadmiresthemandwantstohaveacloserrelationshipwiththem.Thesecasesarespecialinthattheperpetratordoesnotusuallyhaveanyharmfulintentions,buttheycanstillbeverydistressingandunpleasantforthevictims.lARgE RANgE OF BEhAvIOUR

TheproblemareacoveredbytheNationalCouncilstudy–whichinrecentyearsinSwedenhasstartedtobecalledstalking–thusincludesbehaviourofacomplexandveryvariednature.Itrangesfromreceivingsomeunpleasantandunwantedtelephonecallsfromonepersontobeingpersecuted,harassed,threatenedandsubjectedtoviolencebyanex-partnerformanyyears.Itcanalsobeaquestionofrepeated,moreorlesssubtleyetfrighteningthreatsfromsomebodyonehadcontactwithwhilecarryingoutone’swork. Itmightbementionedhere,however,thatthosewhotookpartintheNationalCounciltelephonesurveystillseemedtohavehadanunderstand-ingofwhichsituationswererelevant,andthattheythendescribedmattersmoreseriousthanafewincidentsofmildharassment.Onlytenpeopleofalltherespondentssaidthatatsometimeintheirlivestheyhadbeensubjectedtonon-frighteningharassmentbyapersonontwotofouroccasions;thiswasdespite the fact that suchexperiences shouldbemorecommon thanthosewhichoccurredonmoreoccasions.Mostwho said that theywerevictimssaidthatharassmenthadoccurredonatleastfiveoccasions.

35

Whatvictimsthushaveincommonisthatonrepeatedoccasionstheyhavebeen subjected to somethingunpleasantbyanotherperson.38Thatwhichdifferentiatesstalkingvictimsfrommanyothercrimevictimsisthattheoffencenotisanincidentwhichhastakenplaceandisover,butsome-thinginprogresswhichstretchesintothefuture.Theauthorsofthereport“StalkingLawsandImplementationPractices”describestalkingas“…aprospectiveorfuture-lookingcrime,whilemostcrimeinvestigationsdealwithpastcrimes”.39 Takingintoconsiderationthelargedifferencesinthenatureanddura-tionofharassment,itisalsonaturalthatvictimswereaffectedtodifferentdegrees.Almostathirdsaidthattheyhadnotbeenespeciallyfrightenedoftheharassment.Twothirdsofthevictimsdidnotreportthemattertothepolice;somebecausetheydidnotthinkthatitwastooseriousandthattheycouldmanagethesituationthemselves.Againstthistherewerevic-timswhohadbeenveryfrightenedandwhoselivesweregreatlyaffectedforalongtime.Theyreportedtheincidentstothepoliceonrepeatedocca-sionswithoutitdoinganygoodandtheytriedtoprotectthemselvesfromcontinuedpersecutioninanumberofdifferentways. IntheopinionoftheNationalCouncilandwiththeaboveinmind,itispossibletoquerywhetherwhatthevictimshavebeenthroughhasenoughincommonfortheirexperiencestoallbecalled‘stalking’.Ifonebelievesthatatermforrepeatedpersecutionandrepeatedharassmentwouldhelp togiveincreasedattentiontothisphenomenon,perhapsoneshouldconsidernarrow-ingdownthedefinitionsomewhat.Perhapstheterm‘stalker’shouldbelimitedtosometypesofpersecutor,forexample,peoplewhoareunknowntothevictim,ortothekindsofharassmentwhichmanifestlyfrightenedthevictim. Itisthusaquestionofdifferentformsofbehaviour,differentrelation-shipsbetweenvictimsandperpetrators,differentmotivesfortheperpetra-tors, different reactions from victims and different amounts of sufferingcausedtovictims.Thiswiderangemakesmoredifficultananalysisofwhichmeasuresareneededinordertodealwiththisunwantedbehaviour.

lEgISlATIvE MEASURES

Whenproposalshavebeenputforwardforneworchangedpunishmentprovisions,therearetwoaspectswhichhavereceivedmuchattention.Oneisthatthepunishmentprovisionsapplicabletostalkingdonotsufficientlytakeintoconsiderationthatitisapatternofrepeatedactions.Theotheristhatsomeoftheharassmentwhichvictimsaresubjecttonotispunishable–itfallsbelowtherequirementsformolestation–whileatthesametime

38) It ought to mentioned here, however, that the study only provides one side’s description of what has happened. It might be more correct to say that victims feel that they have been the target of repeated harassment. In theory, it is not impossible that in some of the ‘milder’ cases, for example, repeated harassment by a neighbour, there is another party who feels that it is he/she who has been persecuted and harassed by a neighbour.

39) Miller, N. and Nugent, H. (�00�).

36

itcanbeveryunpleasantandfrighteningforthevictim,especiallyifpartofapatternwhichisrepeatedoveralongperiod.

RAISED CRIMINAl CUlPABIlITY FOR REPEATED CRIME

Thefocusofpenalregulationsisuponsingleacts.Eachoneisjudgedsepa-ratelyasanoffenceinitselfanditisonlytoalimitedextentthattheimpo-sitionofpunishmentsreflectsthattheoffencesarepartofarepeatedpattern.Proposalshavethereforebeenmadeforneworchangedpunishmentprovi-sionswhichlikethoseforgrossviolationofintegrityandgrossviolationofawoman’sintegritytakeintoconsiderationtherepeated,systematicnatureoftheactsintheassessmentofcriminalculpability.Inthisway,evenvictimswhoarenot“acloserelative”oftheperpetratorwouldbegivengreaterlegalprotectionwhensubjectedtorepeated,systematicharassment. Suchanewprovisionwouldmeanthatthepunishmentfortheactswouldbeinbetterproportiontotheirdamagingeffectsuponthevictimthanisthesituationtoday.Itwouldalsosendasignaltopoliceandprosecutorsthattheyshouldgivecrimesofthiskindincreasedpriority.Theycouldthenoperateinsuchawaythatifthereisanypatterntotheactionsitwillberevealedandcouldbeproven.Formoreseriouscases,raisedcriminalculpabilitycouldin-creasethechancesthattheperpetratorbecommittedtopsychiatriccare.40Itwouldalsoprovideincreasedopportunitiestoapplycoercivemeasuresandtosecureevidence. Thereareseveralalternativestohowcriminalculpabilitycanberaised: 1.Extendtheapplicabilityofgrossviolationofintegritybyremoving

thecloserelativerequirement. 2.Introduce anewpunishmentprovisionwith violationof integrity

offencesasamodel. 3.Introduceanewpunishmentprovisionforgrossmolestation. 4.Introducerepeatedviolationasageneralaggravatingcircumstance

intoSection29,subsection2ofthePenalCode.The prosecutors who the National Council interviewed recommend thealternativeofintroducinganewpunishmentprovisionforgrossmolesta-tion.Theadvantagesarea)inthiswaythecurrentgrossviolationofinteg-rityoffencescanbemaintainedintact,whichisdesirablewhenoneconsid-ersthespecialkindsofproblemstheyareaimedat,andb)thereisnoneedtointroducespecialregulationsfortheseverityofthepunishment. Ifthegovernmentadjudgesthatthereisreasontotakethismatterfurther,itwouldbeappropriatethattheydosowhilebearinginmindissuestakenupbytheCommitteeonThreatsandViolencetoElectedOfficials.

CRIMINAlISATION OF ACTS CURRENTlY NOT CRIMINAl OFFENCES

Proposalshavealsobeenputforward,however,statingthatthereisaneed

40) In order for a defendant to be committed to psychiatric care, the penalty for the offence must be more than just a fine (Section 3�, subsection 3, The Penal Code).

37

tocriminaliseactswhicharecurrentlynotpunishableoffences–iftheyarepartofapatternofrepeatedharassmentandpersecution.Extendedcriminali-sationwouldmeana)thatactionswhicharecurrentlynotpunishableoffenceswouldbecomesoiftheyarepartofapatternofrepeatedharassmentorper-secutionwhichincludespunishableacts,andb)thatnon-punishableactsbe-comepunishablewhentheycombineintoapatternofpersecutionorharass-ment,regardlessofwhetherotherpunishableactsoccurornot. ThepoliceandprosecutorswhotheNationalCouncilinterviewedcon-siderthatwhatismosturgentissomeformofchangeinthelawtocatchbehaviourwhichiscurrentlynotpunishable.Theirexperienceisthatper-secutorslearnwheretheborderlinegoesforwhatispunishableandkeepoutsideit.Butforthevictim,whoknowstheperpetrator’sintentionsfromhis/herearlierconduct,theeffectisjustasfrightening. TheNationalCouncildoesnotdoubtthatstalkerscanachievetheiraimtoharassandfrightenothersthroughactionswhicharenotpunishablecriminaloffences.Theappended in-depth interviewwith thepersecutedpoliticianclearlyillustratesthis41.

POlICE AND PROSECUTORS ARE CENTRAl TO INCREASINg ThE NUMBER OF lEgAl PROCEEDINgS

Regardlessofwhetherdecisionsaretakenwhichchangethelawornot,thereisagooddealthelegalsystemcandoinordertoimprovepreventionand give victims better support. This is shown by experiences reportedfromothercountries.ItisalsoclearfromboththeAdministrationofJus-ticeCommitteereportandfromthediscussionstheNationalCouncilheldwithrepresentativesofvariousauthorities. Thegeneralpicturepresented,bothinSwedenandincountrieswheretherearestalkinglaws,isthatincidentsofstalkingreportedtothepolicehavelowpriority,especiallyiftheydonotincludeclearthreatsoractualviolence.Thepolicerarelyaskforinformationwhichcangiveapictureofwhethertheharassmentispartofarepeatedpattern.Inaddition,harass-mentisdifficulttoproveandoftenleadsto‘mywordagainstyours’situa-tions.InEngland,wheretherehasbeenalawagainststalkingsince1997,onlyafewpercentofallcasesreportedtopoliceseemtoleadtolegalpro-ceedingsforoffencesagainstthenewstalkinglaw. Amoreactive,knowledge-basedattitudefrompoliceandprosecutors–bothinordertoprovideanoverallpictureofstalkingoffencesandtoobtainandsecureadequateevidence–wouldprobablyconsiderablyincreasethepercentageleadingtolegalproceedings,evenundercurrentlegislation. Workonsecuringevidenceisanespeciallyimportanttaskinstalkingsituationssincethereisoftennobodyotherthanthevictimwhocancon-firmthatharassmenthastakenplace. Insuchcases, it isalso importantthatthepoliceandthevictimcandevisestrategiesinordertoobtainevi-

4�) See appendix 4

38

denceduringfutureincidents.AnAmericanstudyalsopointsoutthatse-curing evidence is a core issue, especially taking into consideration thatfalsealarmstothepolicefrompeoplesayingtheyarebeingharassedandpersecutedarebecomingmorecommonintheUSA.42 Measureswhichwouldhelpimprovemattersareforexample: •trainingintheproblemareaforpolice,prosecutorsandjudges, •reportformswhichincludequestionsaboutpreviousharassmentbythe

perpetrator,suchasthereportformsbeingusedinthestalkingprojectinprogressinKalmarandSödertörndescribedonpage55,and

•specialresourcestaffwithinthepolicetowhomotherpolicestaffcanturnwithquestionsaboutthisarea.

OThER MEASURES FROM ThE lEgAl SYSTEM

Apartfrommeasureswhichdirectlyaimtoincreasethenumberoflegalpro-ceedings,therearealsootherswhichpoliceandprosecutorscantakeinordertopreventharassmentfromcontinuingandtorelievethevictim’ssuffering.TheRestrainingOrderAct,forexample,shouldbeexploitedtoagreaterextentthantoday.IncaseswheretheperpetratorisbannedfromcontactwiththevictimwiththesupportoftheRestrainingOrderAct,policeandprosecutorsmustalsomakegreatereffortstoenforcethebanthanoftenisthecasetoday.Policeshort-comingsregardingthelawsonrestrainingordersisshownbythetwoevalua-tionsofthelawcarriedoutbytheNationalCouncilinrecentyears.43

ThestalkingprojectbeingcarriedoutbythepoliceinKalmaralsoshowsthatthepolicecangivethevictimswhoreportstalkingmuchbettersupportthantheydotoday.Usingsystematicassessmentsofthreatsandrisks,thepo-liceaccumulatedatausedtodecide if thevictimneedsarestrainingorder,alarmtelephone,contactwithavoluntaryorganisationforcrimevictimsetc. Ithasbeensaidthattheremaybecaseswherementallydisturbedstalk-ershavepreviouslyreceivedpsychiatriccare,andthathealth-careservicesholdinformationabouttheirillnesseswhichcouldbeofgreatimportancetopoliceriskassessments44.Accesstothisinformationbypoliceandprosecu-torsislimited,however,bytheSecrecyAct,whichrequiresthatthecrimetheperpetrator is suspectedof ispunishablebyat least twoyears’ imprison-ment45.Theneed for information in this typeof case, however,must beweighedagainstindividuals’rightstoprotectionoftheirintegrity. Otherwaysthepolicecanimprovethevictim’ssituationwhichcametolightduringtheworkonthisreportareasfollows: •Itisimportantthatthepolicecontinuouslyprovidethevictimwithas

muchinformationaspossibleastheinvestigationprogresses.

4�) Miller, N. and Nugent, H. �00�.43) The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå): Report �003:� and Brå: interim

report �005. 44) Comments upon motion �004/05:Ju4�� from referral bodies: The Legal Unit of the Stockholm

County Police Authority and the Centre for the Prevention of Violence, Karolinska institutet.45) Section 7, subsection �, Section �4, subsection �, The Secrecy Act

39

•Stalkingvictimsshouldhaveaccesstospecialsupportstaffwhocanadvisethemonwhattodoinordertoreducetheriskofcontinuedharassment.

MEASURES FROM ORgANISATIONS OThER ThAN ThE lEgAl SYSTEM

Theneedforsupportandhelpismostlythesameforstalkingvictimsasforothercrimevictims.Thereisaneedfor informationaboutwheretogetpractical,psychologicalandpossiblyfinancialsupport.Anotherneedmayalsobetotalktoothersabouttheirsituation,forexample,tosomebodywhohashadsimilarexperiencesortoasocialworker,psychologistorthelike.Whatdifferentiatesstalkingvictimsfrommanyothercrimevictims,aspreviouslymentioned,isthattheoffenceisnotanincidentwhichhastakenplacebutisinprogressandwillcarryonintothefuture.Thismakesspecialdemandsuponsupportefforts. Socialservicesareresponsibleforcrimevictimsandtheirfamiliesreceiv-ingsupportandhelpofvariouskinds.Socialservicescanalsohelpprovideapersontobebythecrimevictim’sside,forexample,duringquestioninglinkedtotheinvestigationandduringthetrial.Health-careservicesaretocontributepsychologicalsupportincaseswherecrimevictimsneedthis. Severalvoluntaryorganisationsalsoworktosupportandhelpvictimsofcrime,forexamplethroughcounselling,counsellorsandcontactswithauthoritiesandinsurancecompanies.TheSwedishAssociationforVictimSupport,Men’sHelplines,TheNationalOrganizationforWomen’sShel-tersandYoungWomen’sSheltersinSweden,TheSwedishFederationforGayandLesbianRights,theSwedishAssociationofWomen’sSheltersandTerrafemareexamplesofsuchvoluntaryorganisations.

ThE RESPONSIBIlITIES OF EMPlOYERS

According to the Work Environment Act, employers have considerableresponsibilityforthephysicalandpsychologicalworkenvironmentofemploy-ees.HowthisresponsibilityiscarriedoutinpracticeiscontrolledbytheregulationsandgeneraladviceoftheSwedishWorkEnvironmentAuthority(Arbetsmiljöverket,previouslyArbetarskyddsstyrelsen,theBoardofOccupa-tionalSafetyandHealth).46

Inprofessionswhereemployeesriskviolenceandthreatsofviolence,theemployerisduty-boundtoworkonbothrisk-preventionandfollow-upmeasures.Anexampleofasituationwheresuchrisksexistiswhentheemployeeisinapositionofpowerorauthority.Sometimesallthatisneededforanemployeetobesubjectedtothreats,telephoneterror,persecution,sabotageorviolenceisthathe/sherepresentsanofficialbodyororganisationtheperpetratorisindisputewith.Avictimisedemployeeshouldreceivehelpandsupportquicklyinordertopreventorrelievebothphysicalandpsycho-

46) AFS, Board of Occupational Safety and Health (Arbetarskyddsstyrelsen) Statute Book.

40

logicalinjury.Theemployershouldalsosetupspecialroutinesforthis.47

Theemployeralsohasaresponsibilitytopreventemployeesbeingsub-jectedtooffensiveprejudicialtreatmentbytheircolleaguesorbytheemployer.Examplesofsuchtreatmentarepersecutioninvariousforms,threats,in-stillingfear,sexualharassment,deliberateinsultsandintentionallymakingitdifficultfortheemployeetodohis/herwork.48

ResponsestotheNationalCouncil’sInternet-basedquestionnaireandinterviewswithsecuritymanagersandvictimsshowthatthereareexam-ples of workplaces within the media and in parliament which are wellpreparedandprovideplentyofsupportwhenemployeesaresubjectedtostalking.Thesurveyalsoshows,however,thatmanyofthepsychiatristswhohavebeenpersecutedbymentallyillpersonswithwhomtheyhavehadcontactinprofessionalcontextsdidnotfeelthattheyreceivedespe-ciallymuchhelpandsupportfromtheiremployerwhentheyaskedforit. TheNationalCouncilconsidersthatthereisanurgentneedforem-ployers in professions which are specially at risk of being subjected tostalkingtohavetheskillsandpreparednessneededtogivethevictimthebest possible support andprotection.But alsootherworkplaces shouldhaveproficiencyandroutinesfordealingwithsuchmatters,forexampleincaseswhereapersonisbeing(orbelieveshe/sheisbeing)persecutedandrepeatedlyharassedbyacolleague.MENTAllY DISTURBED PERPETRATORS

Takingintoconsiderationthelargevariationinthenature,prevalenceanddura-tionofstalkingbehaviourandthereasonsforit,itisnotpossibletodescribeatypicalstalker.Thedegreetowhichstalkerssufferfrompsychologicaldistur-bancesvaries.Therearenomajorstudieswhichcansayhowcommonitis. IntheAmericanprevalencestudy,onlyaverysmallpercentageofthevictimsbelievedthatthestalkingwasduetotheperpetratorbeingpsycho-logicallydisturbed.EvenintheBritishstudyof167stalkingcasesreportedtothepoliceandpassedontoprosecutorsforprosecution,therewerefewcaseswheretherewasreasontobelievethesuspectwasmentallydisturbed. Wherelonger-termstalkingcasesareconcerned,thepercentageofper-petratorswithpsychologicaldisturbancesoughttobeconsiderablyhigher.Americanstudieswithsamples fromforensicpsychiatricclinicsdescribethedifferenttypesofdisturbanceswhichareinvolved.Sometimesitispeo-plewithschizophreniaor‘bipolarsyndrome’(previouslycalled‘mano-de-pressiveillness’)wherethestalkingispartofthedisorder.Therearealsopeoplewhosufferfromso-called‘erotomania’,whichmeansthattheyarein lovewith and totallyobsessedwith anotherperson, often somebodytheydonotknow.Theyhaveonlyonedelusion,thattheirloveisorwillbereciprocated.Inotherwaystheyarenormalpeople.

47) AFS �993:�, Våld and hot i arbetsmiljön (‘Violence and Threats in the Work Environment’)48) AFS �993:�7, Kränkande särbehandling i arbetslivet (‘Offensive Discrimination at Work’)

4�

Thepictureprovidedby the research is that stalkerswithpsychologicaldisturbancesaredifficulttotreat.Theyusuallylackanyinsightintotheirillnessanddonotwantanyhelptostopthestalking.Itis,however,amat-terofurgencythatinternationalknowledgeofdiagnosesandappropriateattitudesandtreatmentmethodsarefollowedupandbecomeknownalsoinSweden.Onewaytoensurethiswouldbetosetupaspecialcentrere-sponsiblefordealingwiththesematters.Analternativewouldbetoaug-mentanexistingresearchfacilitywithresourcestodealwithsuchissues.

4�

ReferencesArbetarskyddsstyrelsens författningssamling 1993:2,Våldochhotiarbets-miljön./BoardofOccupationalSafetyandHealthStatuteBook1993:2‘ViolenceandThreatsintheWorkEnvironment’.

Arbetarskyddsstyrelsens författningssamling 1993:17, Kränkande särbe-handlingiarbetslivet./BoardofOccupationalSafetyandHealthStatuteBook1993:17‘OffensiveDiscriminationatWork’

Betänkande 2004/05:JuU20.Stalking/Report2004/05:AdministrationofJusticeCommittee20.‘Stalking’

Brottsförebyggande rådet (2003).Besöksförbud.Enutvärderingavlagenochdesstillämpning.Rapport2003:2.Stockholm:Brå.Fritzes./TheSwedishNationalCouncilforCrimePrevention(2003).‘RestrainingOrders.AnEvaluationoftheLawandItsImplementation’.Report2003:2.Stockholm:Brå.Fritzes.

Brottsförebyggande rådet (2005).Nyareglerombesöksförbud.Delrapport.Stockholm:Brå.Fritzes./TheSwedishNationalCouncilforCrimePrevention(2005).‘NewRegulationsforRestrainingOrders’.Interimreport.Stockholm:Brå.Fritzes.

Brottsförebyggande rådet (2005).Otillåtenpåverkanriktadmotmyndighets-personer.Fråntrakasserier,hotochvåldtillamorösinfiltration.Rapport2005:18.Stockholm:Brå.Fritzes./TheSwedishNationalCouncilforCrimePrevention(2005).‘UnlawfulInfluencesDirectedatOfficials.FromHarass-ment,ThreatsandViolencetoAmorousInfiltration’.Stockholm:Brå.Fritzes.

Lernestedt, Claes (2003).Kriminalisering–problemochprinciper.Göte-borg.Iustusförlag./Lernestedt,Claes(2003).Criminalization–problemsandprinciples.Göteborg.Iustusförlag.

Lundgren, Eva, Heimer, Gun, Westerstrand, Jenny och Kalliokoski, Anne-Marie (2001).Slagendam.MänsvåldmotkvinnorijämställdaSverige–enomfångs-undersökning.Brottsoffermyndigheten,Uppsalauniversitet.Fritzes.Stock-holm./Lundgren, Eva, Heimer, Gun, Westerstrand, Jenny och Kalliokoski, Anne-Marie (2001).CapturedQueen.Men’sviolenceagainstwomen in‘equal’Sweden–aprevalencestudy.TheCrimeVictimCompensationandSupportAuthority,UppsalaUniversity,Fritzes.Stockholm.

43

Miller, Neal och Nugent, Hugh (2002).StalkingLawsandImplementationPractices:ANationalReviewforPolicymakersandPractitioners(ExecutiveSummary)www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/ilj_stalk/iljexecsummary.html

Proposition 1997/98:55.Kvinnofrid.SOU1995:60.Kvinnofrid.HuvudbetänkandeavKvinnovåldskommisionen.Stockholm:Fritzes./Proposition 1997/98:55.‘Women’sIntegrity’.SOUReport1995:60‘Women’sIntegrity’MainreportoftheCommissiononViolencetoWomen.Stockholm:Fritzes.

44

Appendix �Selection procedure for the interview surveyThestartingpointforselectingpeoplefortheprevalencestudywasanation-widerepresentativesampleof1000telephonenumbersofprivatepersonsintheagerange18–79years.Systematicnumberseriesofsixtelephonenumberswerethenproducedfromeachnumberintheoriginalsample.Thisproceduremeantthatthefinalsampleoftelephonenumberscontainedarepresentativelylargepercentageofex-directorytelephonenumbers.Sinceitcanbeassumedthatpeoplewithexperienceofrepeatedharassmentoftenhaveunlistedtele-phonenumbers,itwasimportantforthequalityofthesurveythatsuchnum-berswerealsocontacted. Afterthe6000newnumberswereobtained,theoriginalsample1000numberswerediscarded.Thisleft6000numbers.Anunknownproportionofthesenumbersweretocompaniesandhouseholdswithnopeopleintheagerange18–79years.Anunknownnumberwerealsonotinuseorhadnosubscriber.Thesamplewasthereforesupplementedbyanewnumberseriesof1000numberseachtime90percentofthesamplenumbershadbeenusedup.Thesurveywasconcludedwheninterviewswith4000peoplehadbeenobtained. Inorder to ensure the representativenessof the survey,quotaswerespecifiedforthenumberofinterviewsfromeachSwedishcounty(baseduponpopulationstatisticsfromSCB:StatisticsSweden).Whenaquotawasfilled,datacollectionfromthatcountywasstopped. Withineachhousehold,thesurveyorsaskedforthepersonbetween18and79whosebirthdaywasnext.Thiswasdoneinordertomakethe interviewgroupevenmorerandom. InterviewswerecarriedoutonMonday–Thursdayfrom16.00–21.00,Friday16.00–20.00,Saturday11.30–17.00andSunday12.00–20.00.Twelveattemptstophonepeopleweremadeonsixseparatedaysbeforeapersonwasadjudgeduncontactable.

Table �0: Outcome of contact attempts made in the interview survey. People interviewed 4 0�9

People not wishing to be interviewed � 438

Unusable numbers (companies, households without people in the target group age range, numbers with no subscriber, etc.) 4 648

People who were away, sick, or where language problems made interviews impossible 90

Households where the person to be interviewed was not contacted during any of twelve attempts 578

Total �0 773

45

Possible sources of error in the interview surveyThereisaproblemwiththesamplingproceduredescribedabovewherethestartingpointisnotmembersofthepopulationbuttelephonenumbersinthecountry.ThepercentageofhouseholdsinSwedenwhichconsistofoneadultperson,withorwithoutchildren,isover50percent.Asthepercentageofadultsinthepopulationwholiveinsuchhouseholdsisapproximately35percent,theywillbeover-representedinthesurvey.Itisnotinconceivablethatsomekindsofharassmentaremorecommonorlesscommonamongpeopleinsingleadulthouseholdsthanamongpeoplewholiveinhouse-holdswithotheradults.Thiswouldthenaffectthesurveyresults.Inwhichwaysandtowhatextentitisnotpossibletosay. Theadvantageofthesamplingprocedure,i.e.makingitpossibletocontactpeopleinthecountrywithunlistedtelephonenumbers,wasadjudgedtooutweighthedisadvantageoftheover-representationofsingleadulthouse-holds. Afurtherpossiblesourceoferrorinthesurveyisthepeoplewhodidnotwishtotakepart.Thesewere26percentofthetotalnumberofpeoplewhichinterviewersmadecontactwith.Whatexperienceofrepeatedharassmenttheyhad,itis,ofcourse,impossibletosay. Forthistypeofsurvey,directedatthegeneralpublicandwithquestionsaboutasubjectwhichcanbedistressing,aresponsefrequencyof74percentshouldbeconsideredsufficientlystabletoenableconclusionstobedrawnfromthedata.

46

Appendix �Questionnaire used in the interview surveyInthissurvey,repeatedharassmentisdefinedaswhenapersononseveraloccasionsispersecutedorwatchedbythesameperson,orseveraltimesreceives unwanted visits, telephone calls, letters, e-mails, text messages,presentsandthelikefromthesameperson.Haveyouatanytimebeensubjectedtosuchrepeatedharassmentinanyform?

Howoldareyou?

Thissurveyisthusconcernedwithrepeatedharassmentbythesameper-son.Ifyouhavebeensubjectedtothisbydifferentpeople,pleasetellmeabouttheharassmentbythelastperson.Iwillstartbyaskinganumberofquestionsabouttheextentoftheharassment.Approximatelyhowlongagoisitsinceitstarted?

Hasitstopped?

Approximatelyforhowlongdiditgoonfor?

Ifyoutrytocountupthetotalnumberofincidentsyouhavebeensub-jectedtoduringthetimefortheharassmentandcounteachvisit,telephonecall,textmessage,andeachoccasionyouhavebeenwatchedorpersecutedasanincident,isthetotalnumberofincidentsmorethan50?(Ifithasnotstopped,counttheincidentsuptotoday)

Approximatelyhowmanyincidentsareinvolved?

Howdidyoufeel/doyoufeelabouttheharassment?Was/isitVeryfrighteningQuitefrighteningNotespeciallyfrighteningNotatallfrightening

Atitsworst,approximatelyhowoftendidharassmentoccur?SeveraltimesadayEverydaySeveraltimesaweekEveryweekSeveraltimesamonthEverymonthLessoften

47

Iamnowgoingtoaskyouquestionsaboutthepersonwhoharassedyouandthekindofharassment.Whatis/wasyourrelationshiptotheperson?Currentorex-husband,wifeorlive-inpartnerCurrentorex-girlfriend/boyfriendorpartneryouhavenotlivedwithParent/step-parent,sibling,childorotherclosefamilymemberOther personal relationship, for example friend, acquaintance, casualsexualpartner,neighbour,relativeotherthanaclosefamilymemberCurrentorex-workcolleague,fellowstudentorthelikeThepersoncameintocontactwithyouduetoyourwork(forexample,customer,visitor,client,patient)Thepersonwasunknowntoyou

Didthepersonabusealcoholordrugs?

Nowthereareanumberofquestionsabouthowthepersonharassedyou.Hasthepersonvisitedyouathome,atwork,atschooloratotherplacesyouusuallygoto?contactedyoubytelephone?lefttelephonemessages?senttextmessages?sente-mails?sentpostcards,lettersorotheritems?givenyoupresents?destroyedordamagedthingswhichbelongtoyou?stolenthingswhichbelongtoyou?followedyououtdoors?accostedyourfamily,friends,neighboursorworkmates?orderedgoodsorservicesinyourname?observedyourlifeoryourroutines?spreadrumoursorfalseaccusationsaboutyou?contactedyouthroughotherpeople?markedtheirpresencebyleavingvariousthingsforyoutofind?loiterednearyourhome,placeofwork,schoolorotherplacesyouusuallygoto?

ApartfromthethingsIhavementioned,inwhatotherwayshasthepersonharassedyou?

Haveyouoranycloserelativebeensubjected toexpress threatsofvio-lence,eitherspokenorwritten,bythepersonwhoharassedyou?

Haveyouoranycloserelativebeensubjectedtoviolencebythepersonwhoharassedyou?

48

Haveyoureportedtheharassmenttothepolice?Yes,onceYes,twotofourtimesYes,fivetotentimesYes,morethantentimesNoDon’tknow/don’tremember

Didreportingthemattertothepoliceleadtoanyactionwhichimprovedyoursituation?YesTosomeextentNoDon’tknow

Wasthepersonconvictedofharassment?Includinganysummarypunish-mentimposed?

Doyouknowwhichoffence(s)heorshewasconvictedof?

Doyouknowwhatsentenceorpunishmentthepersonreceived?

Didtheharassmentcontinueduringthepunishmentperiod?

Whydidyouchoosenottoreporttheharassmenttothepolice?(Questiontothosewhodidnotreportthematter)DidnotdareoutoffearforreprisalsDidnotthinktheharassmentwasseriousenoughDidnotthinktheharassmentwascriminalDid not believe that it would lead to any action from the police,prosecutorsorcourts

DidnotwanttheattentionareportwouldleadtoDidnotwanttothepersontogetintotroubleThoughtthatthepersonwouldnotstopharassingmeanywayOtherreasonDon’tknow

Have you sought any help to stop the harassment, apart from family,friendsandacquaintances?Soughthelpfromhealth-careservicesSoughthelpfromsocialservicesSoughthelpfrommyemployerSought help from voluntary support organisations (crime victim hel-plines,women’shelplines,etc.)

NotsoughtanyotherhelpOtherhelpNo

49

Ingeneral terms,howmuchhelpdoyouthinkyougot fromthoseyoustatedinthelastquestion?AlotofhelpQuitealotofhelpNotmuchhelpVerylittleornohelp

Whatdoyoubelievewasthemainreasonforthepersontoharassyou?TogetrevengeTomaintainorrestartarelationshipTohumiliateorinsultyouToredressaninjusticeTostartaloveaffairwithyouToinfluenceyouinyourprofessionOtherreason:Don’tknow

Iamnowgoingtoaskifyouhavedoneanythingtomaketheharassmentstop.Have you, because of the harassment, obtained an unlisted telephonenumber?changedhome?changedyourplaceofwork?movedtoanotherpartofthecountry?requestedconfidentialpersonaldetailsatthetaxoffice?appliedforarestrainingorder?…wasarestrainingordergranted?changedyoureverydayroutines?(forexample,nottakingpublictrans-

portorstayinghomeintheevenings)

HaveyoudoneanythingelseapartfromwhatIhavementioned?

Haveyouatanytimehadtotakesickleaveduetoharassment?

Therearemanydifferentformsofrepeatedharassment.Somecanaffectwholelives,whileothersdonothavesuchseriousconsequences.

Toendwith,Iwonderthereforehowmuchyouconsiderthattheharassmenthasaffectedyourlife?VerymuchToquiteagreatextentToquiteasmallextentVerylittle

50

Appendix 3Tables of stalking in Sweden

Table ��: People who have been repeatedly harassed at some time in their lives and during the last year respectively in three major studies; in percent.

Sweden England & Wales USA

Harassed at some time 9.9 (age �8–59) ��.8 (age �6-59)

At some time, quite or very frightened 5.9 (age �8–79) 8 (>=�8 years)

At some time, very frightened 3 (age �8–79) 5 (>=�8 years)

Last year 3.6 (age �8–59) �.9 (age �6-59)

Last year, frightening to some degree 3.3 (age �8–59) �.6 (age �6-59)

Table ��: Different kinds of harassment and how harassment is generally experienced, according to type of relationship within the group “close relationship”; in percent. Parent/ Girlfriend/ step-parent, Husband, boyfriend, sibling, child, wife or live-in partner one has other close partner not lived with family member n=39o n=43 n=8

Subjected to damaged property 6� (�4) 37 (�6) 38 (3)

Followed outdoors 6� (�4) 49 (��) 38 (3)

Had their lives observed 7� (�8) 58 (�5) �5 (�)

Experienced harassment as very frightening 59 (�3) 37 (�6) �5 (�)

Table �3: People who sought help from various sources, according to type of relationship between victim and perpetrator; in percent.

Close Other relation- relation- Unknown ship ship /stranger All n=90 n=�06 n=�08 n=304

Sought help from health-care services 8 9 � 6

Sought help from social services 8 0 � 3

Sought help from employer � �0 � 4

Sought help from a voluntary organisation �4 � � 6

Sought other help �� 7 3 7

Did not seek any help at all 6� 73 9� 75

5�

Table �4: The general effect of harassment upon victims’ lives, according to type of relationship between victim and perpetrator; in percent.

Close Other relation- relation- Unknown ship ship /stranger All n=87 n=�06 n=�06 n=30�

Harassment has generally affected life to a very great extent 45 �6 �4 �7

Harassment has generally affected life to quite a great extent 3� �8 �� �6

Harassment has generally affected life to quite a small extent �3 �4 34 �4

Harassment has generally affected life to a very small or extent or not at all �� �� 3� ��

Total �00 �00 �00 �00

5�

Appendix 4TheNationalCouncilheldthreein-depthinterviewswithpeopleinordertogainanoverallpictureofindividualstalkingsituationsandhowtheyareexperiencedbyvictims. The National Council chose only to interview people subjected towork-related stalking.The reason for this isprimarily that this formofstalkinghasnotbeendescribedtoanygreatextentpreviously.Thethreepeoplewerenotchoseninordertogivearepresentativepictureofstalkingwithinthisgroup,butinordertogiveamorevividpictureofhowlong-termandseriousstalkingcanbeexperienced. Thoseinterviewedwereapolitician,acase-workerandajournalist.Theyhaveallreadthein-depthinterviews,andgiventheirconsenttopublication.

In-depth interview �: Inger, politician, persecuted for several yearsInher years as apolitician, Inger (made-upname)hadbecomeused tomanagingpeople’ssometimesunbridledangeroverpoliticalissues,politicsingeneralandpoliticians–bothasagroupandasindividuals.Itwasalsosomething which politicians had had to accept, something which camewiththe job,sotospeak.Sowhenapolitically interested localresidentstartedmakingcontactmoreandmoreoftenandbecameincreasinglyag-gressive,ittookawhilebeforeIngerunderstoodthatsomethingwasfun-damentallywrong. ItstartedwiththemanfrequentlycontactingIngertodiscusspolitics.Sometimeshewouldgetangry,callhera“bloodypolitician”andbegener-allyrancorousandaccusatory.Thiswasalittleunpleasant,butnomorethanthat. However,themanbecameincreasinglymoreobtrusiveandmoreoftenaggressive.Hewroteangryletters,turnedupindifferentplaceswhereIn-gerwouldbe,oftenwaitedforheratherhome,andphonedtoherhomein order to ask her husband, children or babysitter where she was andwhenshewasexpectedhome.Oneeveninghewalkedintotheirunlockedhomewhendrunk,shoutedandwasgenerallyunpleasant.ThisendedwithIngerandherfamilymovinghouse.Themancontinuedtomakecontact,very intensively and aggressively during some periods; at other times,thingswerequiet. Afteracoupleofyears,theharassmentescalated.Themanoftenwroteseverale-mailsaday,phonedhometoIngeratnightandaccusedherofmanydifferentthings.Healsostartedtothreatenherindifferentways.In

53

variouswayshemadeitclearthatIngerwould‘pay’forthepersecutionhefeltthatsocietyhadsubjectedhimto.

TRIED hERSElF TO gET ThE MAN TO STOP

Ingertriedeverythingshecouldthinkoftogetthemantostop.Sheswitchedbetweenbeingassertiveandtellinghimtostopphoningandtreatinghimasrespectfullyaspossibleinordertocalmhimanddiverthim.“Itriedtohan-dlethesituation,butIfailed.Iwantedtobestrongandmanageeverythingmyself,evenwhenitwasclearthatIwasveryafraid”,saysInger.“Ialsohadaveryfixedperceptionofthepoliticianasthepersonwhocannotbethreat-ened,whocannotbefrightenedandwhocannotbecoerced.” ItwasnotuntilInger’shusbandwasalsothreatenedthatshereportedthemantothepolice.Themanwasprosecutedand,despitepleadingnotguilty, was convicted of threatening behaviour and molestation, He re-ceivedanon-custodialsentence. ThemanwasalsoissuedwitharestrainingordertostayawayfromInger.Despite this, theattemptsatcontactcontinued,but theychangedcharacterandwerenolongermadedirectlytoher.“Hegotsmart”,saysInger.“Insteadofsendingletterstomyhome,hesentanonymouslettersandcardstomyworkplace.Thesewereindividuallettersandcardswhichwerenotseriousinthemselvessincetheydidnotcontainanythreats,butformetheywereveryserious.Thewholetimethereweresmallincidents,andthewholetimetherediscussionsaboutwhethertheseconstitutednon-compliancewiththerestrainingorderornot.” Ingerfeltworstduringthisperiod.Foroversixmonthsshecouldhardlysleepandshelostalotofweight.Thefeelingofalwaysbeingwatchedandnothavinganycontroloverthesituationwasverydebilitating:“Itwasasifhecon-stantlywantedtoremindmethatheexisted,thathehadnotgivenup.HeknewhowfrightenedIwas,forIhadsaidsoduringthetrial.Thesewereonlynewwayskeephispositionofpower.Ultimatelytherewasthefearthathewouldturnthethreatsintoaction.Ithoughtaboutmyfamilyandthechildren.” Intheend,themanturnedupatapoliticalmeetingwhereIngerwasspeaking.Hewasarrestedbythepoliceandlaterprosecutedforignoringtherestrainingorder.Forthefirsttime,Ingerwentonsickleave. Nowforthesecondtime,themanwastoappearincourt.Somedaysearlier,hesentlettersdirectlytoIngerandpointedoutthathenowmightjustaswelltaketheopportunity.Itwasestablishedthatthemanwasseri-ouslypsychologicallydisturbedandonceagainhereceivedanon-custodialsentence.Ingerreactedstrongly:“Howcanhebeallowedtoruinmylifesomuchandthenjustwalkawayafreeman?”.

hARASSMENT IS NOT A CRIMINAl OFFENCE

Sometimehasnowpassedsincethelasttrial.Therestrainingorderhasbeencontinuallyextended.ThemanhascontinuedtocontactIngerinvar-

54

ious,indirectwaysandIngercontinuestotelltheprosecutorwhenthemanhasdonesomethingwhichmightbecriminal.So far theprosecutorhassaidthattheactsareonlygroundstoextendtherestrainingorder. Ingerfeelsthatshehasendedupinalegalgreyzone.Theman’sindi-vidualactionsarenotconsideredcriminal,butforher–seenintheircon-text–theyareveryfrightening.ThemanremindsherthewholetimeofhisexistenceandtoIngeritisthetotallyobviousthathisaimistoharassherandremindherthatheisstillaroundandwillnotgiveup. Ingersometimesthinksthatthereisnopointintellingtheprosecutororpolicesinceitisstillnotenoughforaprosecution.Butsheneedstherestrainingorder.Atleastthemandoesnotcontactherathomeanylong-er,andnotdirectlyatworkeither. Ingerhashiredasecurityconsultanttohelpherwithsecurityprecautions.Andshehashadapersontotalktoaboutthefearanddisappointmentthatthepersecutiondoesnotstop.“Securityroutinesfromthepoliceandsecurityconsultantareextremelyimportantinordertocreateafeelingofsafetyandinorderformetostayawareofmyownroleintheseroutinesetc.”,saysInger. “Itisveryimportantthatthosewhoknowaboutandcanassessthesituationprofessionally,alsotakefullresponsibilityforwhatoneistodo–andthuslightentheresponsibilityonmyself.TheresponsibilityIalreadyhaveismorethansufficient.”

wIShES ThAT ShE hAD RECEIvED INFORMATION EARlIER

Inger’scontactwiththelegalsystemhasbeenmostlygood,evenifshehasexperienced shortcomings.Herpointofviewcanbe summarised in thefollowingpoints: •Lackofinformationaboutthephenomenon.Ingerwishesthatshehadknownearlierwhatshewasbeingsubjectedto,thatitwasaquestionofbehaviourwherethemostdistinguishingcharac-teristic is the sequence of incidents, not the individual incidents them-selves. •Lackofinformationaboutwhattodooneself.Ingerwishesthatshehadknownearlierhowtodealwiththeman–that“theworstthingyoucandoistorespond.Instead,youshouldignorethepersonandnotreplyatall”. •Toomanypeopleinvolved.Ingerwishesthatshehadonlyonecontactwhointurnwouldtakecareofcontactingtheothers involved.Shehassometimesfelt that themainre-sponsibilityforgettingthingsdonehaslainwithher. •Interventionagainsttheperpetrator.Ingerconsidersthatthesanctionsagainstthemanwerenowherenearinproportiontothemajorconsequenceshisactionshadhadforherlifeandthelivesofherentirefamily. •Nopsychologicalcounselling.

55

Ingerneededsomebodytotalkto,especiallyinthedifficulttimebetweenreportingthemattertothepoliceandthetrial. “Itmayseemstrange,butyoulearntolivewithit.Thisdoesn’tmeanyouacceptitortolerateit,butyoulearntolivewithit”,saysInger.“Sup-port from those around you is very important. But people don’t knowwhatthisisandhowmuchitcanaffectaperson’slife.Iwasluckytofindsomeonetotalktowhocouldprovidesupport.”

(ToldtotheNationalCouncilinNovember2005)

In-depth interview �: Sophie, case-worker, harassed via the Internet for yearsAboutayearago,Sophie(made-upname)decidedtoseewhatwaswrittenaboutherontheInternet.Shewrotehernameintosearchengineandex-pectedafewhits,mostlyconnectedtoherwork.Thesearchresultswereashock.Onwebsiteafterwebsite,inso-calledguestbooks,shewasenteredasapersonwhoofferedvarioussexualservices.Oneofherrelativeswasnamedasapimp,andanumberofplacesSophiegoestowerenamedastheplacesatwhichtheserviceswouldbeperformed.Sophieherselfwasdescribed in detail with her name, home address, workplace, telephonenumberande-mailaddresses. Sophiesoonsuspectedaclientwithwhomsheandseveralofhercol-leagueshadhadcontactayearorsoearlier.Themanhadconsideredhim-selfwronglytreatedandhadbehavedaggressivelytowardsthoseinvolved.ThewaythemanwrotewasalmostidenticalwiththeInternettexts.Hersuspicionswerereinforcedwhenalsocolleagueswhohadhadcontactwiththemanwerewrittenabout.Sophiereportedthemattertothepoliceandtoldthemofhersuspicions. Sincethen,theInternetharassmenthasconstantlyincreased.AsearchforSophie’snamenowgivesover1000hits,consistingalmostentirelyofsexualandracistharassment.Therearecoarsedescriptionsofwhatherbodylookslikeandwhichsexualservicessheperforms.Sheisalsode-scribedasasellerofhardcorepornographicmaterialsandasrunningpros-titutionservices.

FAMIlY, RElATIvES AND COllEAgUES AlSO hARASSED

TheperpetratorhasforyearsobservedSophie’slifeandfoundoutwhereshelives,wheresheworks,whenshehaschangedjobs,hertelephonenum-bersande-mailaddressesathomeandatwork,whoherclosefamily,rela-tives,friends,colleaguesareetc.Byaccessingherwebmailaccount,theperpetratoralsofoundoutthee-mailaddressesofherfriends.Allthisin-

56

formationwasputoutontheInternet. ThewebsiteguestbooksalsoincludeoffensivedescriptionsofSophie’sfamilymembers,relatives,friendsandcolleaguesaswellasherhusband’sfamilymembers, relatives and colleagues. Sophie’s colleagueswhowerepreviouslyincontactwiththemanarealsovictims. Sophieseemstobethebiggestsuffererofthemall.Apartfromcon-stantlyappearinginaseriesofoffensivecontextsontheInternet,Sophieandherhusbandhavereceivedanumberof telephonecallsande-mailsfrom people interested in Sophie’s alleged sexual services. The numberwouldalmost certainlyhavebeen significantlyhigher if Sophiehadnottakenseveralcounter-measurestomakeithardertocontacther.Forex-ample,shehasmoved,obtainedanew,unlistedtelephonenumber,codedtheire-mailaddressesandappliedforprotectionofpersonaldetails. Theperpetratorhasnever threatenedSophie–neitherhashephonedher,writtentoherorinanyotherwaytriedtocontacther.Nonetheless,inrecentyearsshehaslivedwithfearwhichvariesbetweenquitestrongandverystrong.Thefearisforbothherownandherfamily’ssafety:“Thereisalwaysfearwhensomeoneisvictimisingmeandmyfamilyinthisway.Itismostlyavirtualthreat–sofaratleast.ButallthetimeIthinkaboutwhathisnextmovewillbe,andwhathewoulddoifthepoliceintervene”. Fearthattheperpetratorwillfindoutwherethefamilynowlivesandtheplacestheygoleavesaconsiderableimprintontheeverydaylivesforthe entire family. Their lives are characterised by constant caution andcontinuoussecuritymeasures. The feelingofviolation isalsodifficult forSophie tobear.She feelsviolated knowing that fictitious sexual stories are circulating round theInternet,knowingthatotherpeoplereadthemandperhapsbelievethem,andbybeingcalledinbyherbossbecauseanoutsiderhasreadwhattheysay.ButthegreatestviolationSophiefeelsisnotbeingtakenseriously,notevenbythepolice. ItwaswhenSophiehadknownabouttheharassmentforaboutoneyearandherthirdreporttothepolicehadbeenaddedtothepilethatheremployerdecidedthatenoughwasenough.Theheadofsecuritygavethepolice a comprehensive report containing supplementary informationwhichclearlypointedtothesuspectedperpetrator.Itwasnotuntilthenthatthepoliceinvestigationgotgoing.Butwhenthepolicewereabouttointerveneagainst thesuspectedperpetrator, the investigationstopped. Itstartedupagainlater,butthemanhasstillnotbeenarrested.

ThE hEAD OF SECURITY hAS BEEN A gREAT hElP

Sophieisveryhappywiththehelpshehasreceivedthroughherjob.Theheadof security,apart fromcarryingoutan investigation,hasalso, forexample, takensecuritymeasures regardingSophie’se-mailaddressandtelephone number, informed her how to handle her personal details in

57

variouswork-relateddocuments,helpedherwithcontactswiththepoliceandphonedroundtovariousorganisationswhichprovideguestbooksandaskedthemtoremovetheoffensivematerial. Sophie’scriticismofhowthepolicehaveactedinthismatter,ontheotherhand,isconsiderable–bothwithregardtotheresultsandthecase-workitself.TherepeatedreportstothepolicemadebySophie(someto-getherwithheremployer)havenotledtoanyactionwhichhasimprovedhersituation.Ifsheweretogradehersatisfactionwiththewaythepolicehandledthecaseusingascaleoften,wheretenisverysatisfiedandoneisverydissatisfied,thegradewouldbetwo.

Sophie’scriticismsofthepolice,forexample,concernthefollowingareas: •Uncertaintyinclassifyingtheoffence.AccordingtoSophie,thepolicedonotseemtoknowwhichoffence(s)sheisbeingsubjectedto:“TheyhavebeenclassifieddifferentlydependingonwhoIhavespokento,forexample,sexualmolestation,threateningbehav-iourandinsultingbehaviour.Ihavehadtodecidemyselfwhattocallitandclassifyitas.” •LackofknowledgeaboutInternetharassment.SophieconsidersthatthepolicesufferfromalackofknowledgeofhowtheInternetworks.Shealsoconsidersthattheydidnotappreciatethefactthattheharassmentsheisbeingsubjectedtoisconstantlyinprogress,thattheoffensivematerialisconstantlyaccessibleandcanbereadbyanyper-sonatanytime. •Lackofknowledgeofpersecutionoffences.ThequestionswhichSophiehasbeenaskedbythepolice,accordingtoher,indicatealackofknowledgeofthedistinguishingfeaturesofpersecutionoffencesandhowlong-termexposuretothemaffectsthevictims.Thepic-tureSophiepaintsisofquestioningcarriedoutasifitwasamatterofin-dividualincidentswhichcouldbeseparatedandaccountedforindetail:“Youhavetoknowandunderstandthatitisaseriesofincidentsandthenaskquestionsinawaythatisappropriatetosuchaseries,evenifindividualreportshavetobeinvestigated.Interviewmethodsneedtobeadapted.” •Badtreatment.Sophiethinksthatthepolicedidnotseemtotakehersituationseriously.Inthepastfewyearsshehas“phonedthemandnaggedthem”togetthemtoactuponhercase,takeherreportsbytelephoneandsendheracopyoftheinterviewrecordsetc.Someindividualpoliceofficershavealsolackedbothunderstandingandrespect. Sophiehopesthatthepolicearresttheperpetratorinthenottoodis-tantfuture–mostlybecauseshewantsanendtotheharassment,butalsotoavoidhavingtoreportanythingmoretothepolice:“Itisinsultingtohavetotalkeverytimetosomebodywhodoesnotunderstand,tobeforcedtorepeat everythingoveragainandto link it totheotherreportsmyself. Ishouldhavereportedeverytimetherehasbeensomethingnewaboutmeor

58

whenanybodycontactsmeduetotheInternetmaterial,butitbecametoomuchforme.Especiallywhenoneknowsthatnotmuchwillhappenanyway.”

(ToldtotheNationalCouncilinNovember2005)

In-depth interview 3: Peter, journalist, has received anonymous threatening letters for yearsAboutayearago,journalistPeter(made-upname)receivedananonymous,hand-writtenletteratwork.Theletterwasshort,wellwrittenandtidy.Ina‘matteroffactway’,theletter-writerwrotethathe–orshe–wouldkillPeterandPeter’schild.Peterwasinastateofshocktherestoftheday. Forthefollowingmonth,ananonymousthreateningletterarrivedeve-ryweek.Thenthingswerequietforseveralmonthsbeforeafurthercoupleoflettersarrivedathisworkplace.Inoneoftheletters,theletter-writertoldPeterthathewouldsoonseeachilddie.Inacoupleofotherletters,whicharrivedintheaftermathoftheincidentsintheUSAwhereanthraxbacteriaweresentthroughthepost,therewasawhitepowder.Duringthisperiod,Peterwasinamoreorlessconstantstateofgreatfearforhisownand his family’s safety. It was not until the threats against his familystoppedthatthefearstartedtosubsidealittle.

ThE ThREATS hAvE ChANgED IN ChARACTER

Theletter-writer,whohassomethingagainstthewayPeterwaydoeshiswork,hascontinuedtowritetohisworkplace.Monthscanpassbetweenletters,ononeoccasionevenayearorso,buttheletterscontinuetocome–oftenwhenPeterorPeter’sworkplaceisfeaturedinothermedia.Thecharacterofthelettershaschangedovertimeandhasbecome“morecal-culating”,asPeterexpressesit.Thecontentshavebeensomewhatshorterandtheexpressthreatshavebeenreplacedbymoreconcealedthreats. Theletter-writerhasalsowrittentoandcriticisedotherpeopleatPe-ter’sworkplace,buttheselettershavenevercontainedanythreats.Peterdoesnotknowwhyhehasbeensingledoutfor,asheperceivesit,thelet-ter-writer’sdesiretohumiliatehimandinfluencehiswork.Hehasthoughtalotaboutwhy,andaboutwhotheletter-writercanbe.Basedonthelet-ters,hehascreatedapictureoftheperson–apicturewhichisperhapsnotatallcorrect,butwhichstillfeelsgoodtohavewhentherestofthesitua-tionisfullofuncertainty. Peterhashadmanyanonymousletters.Everyletterhasbeenreportedtothepolice.Thepolice,whohaveclassifiedthecaseasthreateningbehav-iour,havetriedtoidentifytheperpetratorwiththeaidoffingerprints,sa-

59

livasamples,profilingetc.,butwithoutsuccess. Peterhas continued towork thewhole time.To sick-list himself orchangejobshasbeenunthinkable–thatwouldfeellikegivingup,throw-ingawayeverythinghestruggledforsomanyyearsandlettingtheletter-writerwin.Haditnotbeenforhishelpfulemployer,hewouldhave“splitapartandbrokendown”,asheexpressesit.Hisemployerhas,forexam-ple,helpedwithpolicecontacts,arrangedcontactswithastalkingexpert,established security routines at his workplace in order to protect Peterfrom the letters as much as possible, paid for therapy and hired body-guardsonacoupleofoccasions.

FEElINg OF UNCERTAINTY AND POwERlESSNESS

Severalyearshavepassedsincethefirstletter.Thelengthofthisperiodhascausedgreatpsychologicalstress.“Thefearofbeingkilledhasgone.Thethingisthatitcarrieson.Thereisnoend.Itisinthebackofmymindallthetime”,saysPeter.Oneofthemostdifficultfeelingsistheuncertainty–notknowingwhotheletter-writerisandwhythepersonisdoingwhatheorsheisdoing,notknowingwhenandifthenextletterwillarrive,andifitwilleverend.Thefeelingofpowerlessnessisalsostrong–notbeingabletodoanythingtoendthesituationwhichisplaguinghislife.Peterlivesconstantlywitharaisedstresslevelwhichmeansthatheisalsomoresensitive to other kinds of disturbance.He ismore easily irritated thanbefore,andevensmallsetbacksandproblemscanbeexperiencedasmajorones.“Theglassisalwaysonlyhalffull”,asheexpressesit. AlthoughthepolicehavetoldPeterthatthethreatsagainsthimarecur-rentlyassessedasatalowlevel,Peterfindsitdifficulttofeelanygreatconfi-denceinthisassessment.Anxietyabouttheanonymousletter-writermakeshimconstantlyvigilantandpreparedtodefendhimselfwhenheisoutdoors. Overtheyears,hehasinstigatedseveralsecuritymeasuresathome–notonlytoincreasethefeelingofsafety,butalsotoatleastdosomethingconcreteinhisotherwisepowerlesssituation.Hehasobtained,forexam-ple,anunlistedtelephonenumberandacallerID.Healwaysphonesbacktotelephonenumbershedoesnotrecognise.Herarelyletshischildopenthefrontdoororliftthelidoftheletterbox.Hehasputupahighfenceroundhishouseandgardenandhasputinanextradoorinthegaragetouseasapossibleescaperoute.

ThE POlICE lACk kNOwlEDgE OF PERSECUTION

Peterhasmixedfeelingsabouthiscontactswiththepolice.Atfirsthefelthewasnotbeingtakenseriously,andtheinitialadviceonhowheshouldreacttothethreatsdidnotseemtofithimorhissituationatall.Hehassinceclearlyfeltthatthepolicecareabouthim,butalsothattheylackthetime,knowledgeandotherresourcestomanagethiskindofcase.Hewasaskedagoodnumberof,tohismind,strangequestionswhichindicated

60

thattherewasnoinsightintowhatitmeanstobesubjectedtothisformofpersecution.Itisasifthepolicedonotunderstandthatthe“psychologicaldistressandpainisveryconsiderablewhenitcontinuesovera longtime”.Peterwishesthathehadreceivedmoreconcretehelptomanagehissituation,forexample,emergencycounsellingthefirsttimeitwasreportedtothepolice,theopportunitytojoininsupportgroupswithotherpersecutedpeople,andtoolstoshowwhatheandhisemployercoulddointheworkplace. SometimesPeteralmostwishesthattheletter-writerwouldknockhimdowninsteadofsendinganonymous letters.Thenhewouldat leasthavesomethingconcretetoshowtothepolice–andthechanceforthepolicetoarrestthepersonwouldincrease.Peter’shopeisthattheletter-writermakesamistakesoonandrevealshimself/herself:“Untilthen,awarningbellwillalwaysringwheneverthereisawhitehand-writtenletterinmymailbox”.

(ToldtotheNationalCouncilinOctober2005)