Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
  • Log out
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
Research ArticleRegular Articles

A Review of Statutes and the Role of the Forensic Psychiatrist in Cyberstalking Involving Youth

Paul Elizondo, Dale E. McNiel and Renée Binder
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online June 2019, 47 (2) 198-207; DOI: https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.003831-19
Paul Elizondo
Dr. Elizondo is Assistant Clinic Professor – Volunteer, and Dr. McNiel is Professor of Clinical Psychology, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, CA. Dr. Binder is Professor and Director of Psychiatry and Law Program, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA.
DO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dale E. McNiel
Dr. Elizondo is Assistant Clinic Professor – Volunteer, and Dr. McNiel is Professor of Clinical Psychology, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, CA. Dr. Binder is Professor and Director of Psychiatry and Law Program, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA.
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Renée Binder
Dr. Elizondo is Assistant Clinic Professor – Volunteer, and Dr. McNiel is Professor of Clinical Psychology, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, CA. Dr. Binder is Professor and Director of Psychiatry and Law Program, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA.
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Adolescents are increasingly exposed to Internet-facilitated crime as they spend more time online. The mental health risks and legal consequences for youth involved in cyberstalking are growing areas of concern. The nature of online stalking presents several challenges regarding investigation, fair adjudication, fact-finding, and legislation. Laws governing online stalking behaviors inconsistently reference the age of a victim or perpetrator as a factor for consideration in case disposition. During adjudication, the forensic psychiatrist may be asked to evaluate the victim or perpetrator involved in cyberstalking. This article focuses on the current legal landscape governing cyberstalking behavior involving adolescents, the roles a forensic psychiatrist may assume in this context, and the opportunity to bring a developmental perspective to these cases.

Technology and social media are increasingly facilitating the risk-taking behaviors of teenagers and young adults1 and the commission of crimes against them.2 There is a growing need to understand how to protect and empower youth regarding safe use of online services. In 2015, a Pew Research Center survey estimated that nine out of ten teenage Americans between the ages of 13 and 17 years used the Internet daily, and almost one quarter of them were online “almost constantly.”3 This population's Internet use has been correlated with increased legal, financial, and mental health risks for youth.4 These risks include online harassment and stalking.4

A study performed by the Crimes Against Children Research Center found that teenagers are at greater risk of exposure to online harassment (one in nine annually in 2010) as their time on the Internet has increased.5 A U.S. Department of Justice report in 2016 found that online youth sexual exploitation was increasing.6 Youth victims of online sexual exploitation may experience symptoms of depression, substance abuse, dating violence, and suicidal ideation.6

This article presents an overview of state and federal cyberstalking legislation and describes the forensic psychiatrist's role in evaluating a victim or perpetrator involved in cyberstalking behavior.

Methods

State and federal cyberstalking statutes were identified and reviewed using the Stalking Resource Center website created by the National Center for Victims of Crime,7 the webpage “State Cyberstalking, Cyberharrassment, and Cyberbullying Laws” provided by the National Conference on State Legislatures,8 and the state cyberstalking law database on the Working to Halt Online Abuse (WHO@) website.9 Information from these sites was cross-referenced for accuracy and updates with the LexisNexis state law database and each state's respective legislature website. A literature search was conducted using LexisNexis, the U.S. National Library of Medicine's MEDLINE database, and Google Scholar. Search terms included cyberstalking, cyberharassment, cyberbullying, legislation, protective order, restraining order, juvenile, adolescent, child, stalking, sexual solicitation, and forensic psychiatry.

Overview of Cyberstalking Legislation

Legislatures have struggled to determine how to treat youth who engaged in or were affected by online crime.10 The terms cyberstalking and cyberharassment are frequently used interchangeably in the law and relevant literature. In this article, the term cyberstalking encompasses both online stalking and harassment behaviors. For generally accepted definitions and ways to distinguish between cyberstalking, cyberharassment, and cyberbullying, please refer to Table 1.11

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Definitions of Cyberstalking, Cyberharassment, and Cyberbullying

As cybercrime terminology became more widely used, so did federal statutes prohibiting such behavior. In October 1998, the federal government enacted the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) with the intention of protecting youth from Internet-mediated crime.12 This law requires that children under 13 years old obtain verifiable parental consent before disclosing personal information online.8 Adolescents 13 years old and older, who are particularly susceptible to behaviors that facilitate online harassment, are not protected by COPPA.13 Also in 1998, the federal government attempted to introduce the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) to restrict minors' access to “harmful material”; however, it was found unconstitutionally overbroad and in violation of the First Amendment, and it ultimately was not passed.14

In 2000, the Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) required federally funded schools and libraries to install Internet filters with the purpose of protecting youth from harmful material online.15 CIPA does not require regulation of access to chat rooms, instant messaging, or other social media.15 Another federal statute worth noting prohibits interstate facilitated sexual solicitation of youth over the Internet or phone; however, it does not explicitly restrict online sexual harassment in which there is no intent to groom or entice the youth to engage in sexual activity.16

Like the federal government, state governments also encounter challenges protecting youth from cyberstalking. State laws inconsistently cover behaviors to which youth are particularly vulnerable.10 For example, state cyberstalking statutes that allude to a victim or perpetrator's age as a factor in case disposition are in the minority (see Table 2). Unless explicitly stated in its statutory language, a state may not have jurisdiction to prosecute cyberstalking behaviors when the victim, perpetrator, and Internet Service Provider (ISP) are in different states.17 In this case, the federal anti-stalking statute, amended in 2006 to include stalking conducted over the Internet, may cover the reported online behavior.18,19

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Components of Criminal Cyberstalking and Cyberharassment Laws by State

State cyberstalking laws vary widely, but several common themes are apparent. The following section contains an extended discussion of the components of cyberstalking laws particularly relevant to protecting children. Please refer to Table 2 for a state-specific tally of each component.

Age Reference

Depending on the state, an online stalker may be subject to harsher legal consequences if the victim is a minor.18 At present, 19 states include an age reference in their cyberstalking laws, however, no two states treat youth stalkers or victims the same. The available literature on juvenile Internet-based risk-taking consistently demonstrates that minors are more likely to both engage in cybercriminal behaviors and become victims of multiple forms of cybercrime.20 The adaptation of age references in cyberstalking statutes is in line with juvenile courts' recent considerations of adolescent neuroscience principles in making fair rulings.21,22

Several purposes may be served by creating cyberstalking laws that explicitly treat youth in a way that honors their vulnerability to cyberstalking behaviors and victimization. Possible benefits of age specification include special deterrence from acts that target minors; rehabilitative treatment for young, immature perpetrators with mental illness; and protection from severe criminal sanctions of young victims or third parties who were coerced into contributing to an act of cyberstalking. Of the states that refer to age in their stalking or cyberstalking laws, 19 acknowledge the need to impose more severe punishments on those who offend against minors. Only eight states, however, acknowledge developmental immaturity as a factor in considering sentences for young offenders.

In State v. Kohonen,23 the Court of Appeals of Washington considered the appeal of a youth adjudicated guilty of cyberstalking in the context of an adolescent's state of mind. The court noted that a “reasonable person in her [the adolescent's] position” (Ref. 23, p 20) would not have known her messages would be construed as a “true threat” and thus reversed the conviction. Table 3 summarizes the age variability in state cyberstalking laws.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

Age References in Anti-Stalking Laws by State

Allowing the Use of a Device for Cyberstalking

Laws in 13 states specify that someone who knowingly allows another person to use a personal electronic device to perpetrate cyberstalking may be held criminally responsible. An example of this occurred in Boston v. Athearn,24 when the Georgia Court of Appeals held in 2014 that parents could be found negligent for allowing their child's false and offensive statements online to remain posted after learning of their existence. In general, an adolescent's risk of delinquent behavior is mitigated by increased parental involvement25; however, cyberstalking may be difficult for parents to supervise.26

Sexual Solicitation and Offender Registration

In the course of cyberstalking, behaviors such as sexual solicitation, exchanging sexually explicit images, and grooming to perform sexual acts over video may occur.27 Risk factors make certain youth particularly vulnerable to being victimized in this manner.28 In rare cases, parents facilitate their child's online expression of sexual behavior, often for monetary compensation or drugs.29 Laws in 24 states specify that this behavior falls under the purview of cyberstalking and is subject to similar criminal prosecution (see Table 2). Only three states require sex offender registration because of conviction for this behavior (see Table 2). The purposes of explicit statutory language addressing this theme include deterrence, network surveillance for offenders, and public awareness of registered offenders.

Courts have encountered challenges balancing the consideration of a victim's negative reaction to sexual solicitation with protecting free speech. For example, in United States v. Alkhabaz, the defendant created a blog where he posted stories detailing the rape and murder of a woman whose name was the same as his classmate.30 The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that these postings did not constitute “communication containing a threat” that a reasonable person would believe was real.30

Protective Orders

Certain states' statutes suggest a protective order be filed when the risk of continued cyberstalking is high. The effectiveness of protective orders is highly dependent on whether the order is permanent or temporary,31 the unique circumstances, the individual against whom the order is filed, and the measured outcome.32 Depending on the state, laws may specify that sending inappropriate or any electronic messages to the victim constitutes a violation of the protective order. To our knowledge, there have not been any studies that have attempted to determine whether protective orders are effective at deterring continued online abuse between or against minors.

Jurisdiction

Twenty-three state statutes specify jurisdiction over a cyberstalker who was in another state when threatening messages were sent. When a state does not specify such jurisdiction, federal laws prohibiting interstate stalking are the only means of prosecution. For example, in United States v. Matusiewicz, most of the defendant's electronic communications to harass family members in Delaware emanated from Texas. This case resulted in the first convictions of cyberstalking leading to death.33 The provisions of the federal stalking statute18 have simplified the prosecution of interstate cyberstalking cases. Furthermore, the October 2013 amendment to this federal law provided that the victim and perpetrator need not be in separate jurisdictions for the law to apply.18

Threats to Immediate Family

Federal law18 and two thirds of the states' cyberstalking statutes34 criminalize online threats to a victim's family members. Some statutes specify the meaning of “family member,” and others leave this undefined. A threat directed at a family member, however, may or may not substantiate a case. In United States v. Moreland,35 an Oklahoma federal district court held that Charles Moreland's electronically transmitted threats directed at the victim's brother would not be considered in his adjudication. The court reasoned that the victim had forwarded Mr. Moreland's threatening messages to her brother and therefore, Mr. Moreland, “by his own conduct, [had not] caused the immediate family members emotional distress” (Ref. 35, p 1232).

Cyberstalking and Stalking Laws

Distinguishing between electronically mediated and traditional, offline harassment behaviors has been the goal of emerging research and legislation.36 Current research suggests ambiguity with regard to differences in motivation, degree of victimization, and demographic characteristics of the typical perpetrator37 and victim.38 Some states have enacted statutes specific to cyberstalking, and others have used or amended existing harassment statutes to cover Internet-based crime.39 Forty U.S. jurisdictions have augmented existing stalking statutes to include electronically facilitated stalking, and 12 expressly apply different law to such behavior.

Role of the Forensic Psychiatrist

A forensic psychiatrist may be retained in cyberstalking cases to help prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, or attorneys on either side of a civil case. Before evaluating a victim or perpetrator, the forensic psychiatrist should be aware of the language used in the applied statute, whether a general stalking statute will be applied to cyberstalking behavior, and if a cyberstalking-specific statute exists. It is also important to know that many states' stalking statutes are labeled “anti-harassment” laws but use language that refers to stalking behavior according to widely accepted definitions (Table 1). Most importantly, the forensic psychiatrist needs to be cognizant of amendments and upgrades to anti-cybercrime law as new technologies, behaviors, and changes in legal thinking emerge.39

Evaluation of the Victim

Cyberstalking is one of the few crimes that include the victim's state of mind as an element of proof.40 All states' criminal cyberstalking statutes require that the victim experienced alarm, fear, or emotional distress because of the perpetrator's behavior.34 Many states employ the reasonable person standard to determine whether illegal stalking has occurred. The reasonable person test requires that a reasonable person would agree that such a reaction was warranted.34 For this reason, mental health expert witnesses may or may not be required to testify to prove that a crime was committed. Prosecutors sometimes need help proving that cyberstalking has occurred, that the victim experienced the quality and extent of emotional distress specified by the relevant statute, and that the victim's reaction was reasonable.40 For example, a victim who exhibits an atypical reaction or an adaptive response to long-term abuse may not present with symptoms that are adequately probative for a factfinder's determination.40,41 The emotional distress and reasonable person standards may invalidate a victim's experience of stalking in the absence of an overt psychological reaction. In these cases, a prosecutor may summon a forensic psychiatrist to facilitate a jury or judge's understanding of the nature and effects of cyberstalking.42

The forensic psychiatrist needs to consider a victim's age, mental health diagnoses, and developmental maturity when determining the reasonableness of the victim's reaction. When the forensic psychiatrist is asked to evaluate cyberstalking involving the family members of the main victim, it is important to be aware of the language used in the relevant cyberstalking law because it may require that the family member experienced distress or that the perpetrator intended to send the messages (general intent) or to cause emotional distress in specific family members (specific intent).

The forensic psychiatrist may also be asked to form an opinion about the effects of cyberstalking on the victim's level of functioning, symptoms, prognosis and need for treatment. In the 13 states with civil stalking statutes (i.e., Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming),43 the forensic psychiatrist may be asked to perform an assessment of damages for which the cyberstalker may be liable. In jurisdictions where protective orders are issued based on online harassment, the forensic psychiatrist may consider when and by whom such an order was requested to help determine who was most affected and when emotional distress began.

Evaluation of the Perpetrator

A forensic psychiatrist may be asked to evaluate a cyberstalker to answer questions about mens rea, whether mental illness contributed to the commission of the offense, and future risk of violence and recidivism. A pretrial or postconviction risk assessment for future violence or re-offense may be ordered to determine whether involuntary commitment or a protective order is necessary.44 In some cases, a prosecutor may request a court order for pretrial supervision and restriction of either online or offline behavior to protect the victim.40 These assessments can be particularly challenging for forensic mental health experts.

Little is known about specific cyberstalking characteristics and case factors that predict future violence and risk of recidivism. Evaluators who choose to employ research on future violence risk in traditional stalking to estimate risk associated with cyberstalking should be explicit about the limitations of that risk assessment. The evaluator should highlight factors unique to the cyberstalking index offense that may greatly influence future risk of physical violence, such as how and why a victim was selected and the geographic distance between involved parties. With traditional stalking, a prior relationship, particularly one that involved sexual intimacy,45 is predictive of future violence.46 Research suggests that after a protective order has been filed to prevent ongoing intimate partner violence, women with children were more likely than women without children to be further victimized by stalking that led to violence.47 The more important factors found to predict risk of future violence after traditional stalking were prior criminal record, overt threats, substance use, and stalker characteristics.46 Other factors correlated with violence following traditional stalking behavior include history of mental illness, history of violence, history of intimate partner violence, vandalism, pet abuse, and escalating stalking behavior.48

When evaluating a perpetrator for future risk of violence, the forensic psychiatrist needs to remain abreast of known differences and research limitations on the similarities and differences between traditional and online stalking. The evaluator should investigate the circumstances of a perpetrator's protective order violations, as they may provide evidence of problems with impulse control, impaired understanding of the order's significance, delusions, severity of mental health impairments, and risk of recidivism without treatment.

When evaluating a perpetrator for treatment recommendations and amenability, the evaluator should attempt to appreciate whether the stalking behavior qualitatively fits into the constellation of a known psychiatric disorder. Examples of such diagnoses include psychotic disorders,49 obsessive-compulsive disorder,50 paraphilias,51 developmental disorders including autism spectrum disorder,52 impulse control disorders, substance use disorders,53 and personality disorders.49 When cyberstalking occurs across state lines, the forensic psychiatrist needs to be familiar with the motives associated with remote online harassment,54 how they relate to diagnosis,55 and implications for treatment.

Categorizing stalker types with respect to their behavior may lead to better violence risk assessments and intervention for this population.56 It is difficult to discern one generally accepted classification method, however, because stalking behavior is complex and individual cases are distinct.57 Proposed adult stalker categories have included obsessive, erotomanic, delusional,58 predatory, disorganized, intimacy-seeking, rejected, retaliating, and bullies.59

A forensic psychiatrist may be asked to evaluate the perpetrator's state of mind to determine if it was consistent with the commission of a general or specific intent crime. The intent behind cyberstalking is an element of all states' relevant statutes,34 and is one of the harder elements to prove.40 According to general intent statutes, a crime has been committed simply if cyberstalkers intended to text, email, or communicate electronically. Proving a specific intent crime was committed requires demonstration of the perpetrator's intent to induce consequences of fear, alarm, or emotional distress in a given victim. In either case, the forensic psychiatrist must provide an opinion about the offender's state of mind at the time of the act.

Experts can be helpful in assessing whether transmitted messages were consistent with cyberstalking as opposed to transient, self-limited behavior.60 When the behavior is clearly consistent with stalking, the evaluator may be asked to determine whether mental illness, at the time of the act, may form a basis for legal insanity.44 In addition to the usual interview, record review, and collateral contacts, it is important for the forensic psychiatrist to review records beyond what is normally provided, such as texts, emails, letters, videotaped police interviews, and the offender's correspondence with people other than the victim.44

Reviewing a cyberstalker's electronic messages during the course of cyberstalking may help inform determinations of state of mind or legal insanity. The insanity defense has been successfully mounted in cases of traditional stalking.61 In 2010, for example, Steve Richard Burky was granted an insanity acquittal and given a 10-year protective order for stalking Jennifer Garner, her husband (Ben Affleck), and their two daughters for eight years.62 To our knowledge, there have not been any cases of cyberstalking that have successfully used the insanity defense.

There are only 10 U.S. jurisdictions with stalking statutes that specify the court's ability to order mental health evaluation and treatment for the offender (see Table 2). These evaluations may either be ordered before a formal conviction or after a guilty verdict. In either case, the forensic psychiatrist may be asked to provide an opinion about whether the offender has a mental illness, if treatment would aid rehabilitation, and if the offender is amenable to such treatment. It is important to opine within the scope of expertise and evidence presented rather than comment on other aspects of the case, such as the likelihood that the victim experienced extortion, identity theft, blackmailing, or other occurrences associated with cyberstalking.

Evaluating Youth Victims and Perpetrators

There are special considerations when evaluating youth with immaturity or with diagnoses such as neurodevelopmental disorders or autism spectrum disorders. The developmental perspective is crucial to questions about state of mind, treatment amenability, and future violence risk. Although stalking behaviors are common in adolescence, they are infrequently associated with malicious intent and may instead reflect inexperience with forming and ending relationships in developmentally immature youth.63 Persons with autism spectrum disorders may be at higher risk of engaging in lengthier stalking pursuits, inappropriate courting, and fixating on strangers, colleagues, and ex-partners.52 The forensic psychiatrist should be familiar with useful interventions to mitigate stalking behavior in persons with autism, such as direct teaching of social and romantic skills.64

In addition to neurodevelopmental considerations, forensic psychiatrists need to consider the child's home environment; for example, whether a child has had adequate supervision or was coerced during the commission of the crime. The forensic psychiatrist needs to take parental involvement into account when rendering an opinion about amenability to treatment for juvenile cyberstalking offenders. Similarly, awareness of child abuse reporting laws in the relevant jurisdiction is important. If reasonable suspicion of parent, guardian, or third party enablement of the crime arises in the course of an evaluation, a mandated report may be required.65 Criminal responsibility may apply to a knowing third-party participant who understands the intent of the stalking behavior.34 Compared with adults, juveniles more frequently recruit accomplices in the course of stalking behavior.66 In the evaluation of a third party involved in cyberstalking, collateral information may be important in determining whether the person was a knowing participant.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The legal landscape governing online stalking has created several roles for the forensic psychiatrist. It is important that the forensic psychiatrist be knowledgeable of trends in Internet use by children, current and future research on cyberstalking characteristics, and cyberstalking laws in their jurisdiction. The forensic psychiatrist may be presented with the opportunity to apply knowledge of human psychosocial developmental and mental illness to effect fair rulings in criminal and civil cyberstalking disputes.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None.

  • © 2019 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Jia H,
    2. Wisniewski PJ,
    3. Xu H,
    4. et al
    : Risk-taking as a learning process for shaping teen's online information privacy behaviors, in Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. New York: ACM, 2015, pp 583–99
  2. 2.↵
    United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: Study on the effects of new information technologies on the abuse and exploitation of children (2015). Available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/cybercrime/study_on_the_effects.pdf. Accessed December 21, 2017
  3. 3.↵
    1. Lenhart A,
    2. Duggan M,
    3. Perrin A,
    4. et al
    : Teens, social media & technology overview. Pew Research Center, Internet & American Life Project. 2015. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015. Accessed January 26, 2017
  4. 4.↵
    1. Anderson EL,
    2. Steen E,
    3. Stavropoulos V
    : Internet use and problematic internet use: a systematic review of longitudinal research trends in adolescence and emergent adulthood. Int J Adolesc Youth 22:430–54, 2017
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Mitchell KJ,
    2. Jones LM,
    3. Finkelhor D,
    4. Wolak J
    : Trends in unwanted online experiences and sexting. Final Report. Durham, NH: Crimes against Children Research Center, 2014
  6. 6.↵
    1. Wolak J,
    2. Finkelhor D,
    3. Walsh W,
    4. Treitman L
    : Sextortion of minors: characteristics and dynamics. J Adolesc Health, 62:72–79, 2018
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Criminal stalking laws. Available at: http://www.victimsofcrime.org. Accessed January 26, 2018
  8. 8.↵
    State Cyberstalking, Cyberharassment, and Cyberbullying Laws. Available at: http://www.ncsl.org. Accessed January 26, 2018
  9. 9.↵
    U.S. Laws. Available at: http://www.haltabuse.org. Accessed January 26, 2018
  10. 10.↵
    Congressional Research Service: Protection of children online: federal and state laws addressing cyberstalking, cyberharassment and cyberbullying. 2009
  11. 11.↵
    National Conference of State Legislatures. State Cyberstalking, Cyberharassment, and Cyberbullying Laws, 2010. Available at: https://www.csg.org/sslfiles/dockets/2012cycle/32B/32Bdocmins/Cyberstalking,%20Cyberharassment%20and%20Cyberbullying%20Laws.pdf. Accessed February 24, 2018
  12. 12.↵
    15 U.S.C. § 6501–6506 (2015).
  13. 13.↵
    1. Matecki LA
    : Update: COPPA is ineffective legislation! Next steps for protecting youth privacy rights in the social networking era. Nw JL & Soc Pol'y 5: 369, 2010
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Major JB
    : Cyberstalking, twitter, and the captive audience: a First Amendment Analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2). S Cal L Rev 86: 117, 2012.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    47 C.F.R. § 54.520 (2011).
  16. 16.↵
    18 U.S.C. § 2425 (1998).
  17. 17.↵
    1. Roberts L
    : Jurisdictional and definitional concerns with computer-mediated interpersonal crimes: an analysis on cyber stalking. Int'l J Cyber Criminol 2:271, 2008
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    18 U.S.C. § 2261A (2013).
  19. 19.↵
    1. Kamal M,
    2. Newman WJ
    : Revenge pornography: mental health implications and related legislation. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 44:359–67, 2016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Jaishankar K
    1. Marcum CD
    : Adolescent online victimization and constructs of routine activities theory, in Cyber Criminology: Exploring Internet Crimes and Criminal Behavior. Edited by Jaishankar K. New York: CRC Press, 2011, pp 253–76
  21. 21.↵
    1. Steinberg L
    : Adolescent brain science and juvenile justice policymaking. Psychol Pub Pol'y & L 23:410, 2017
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. Costello CR,
    2. McNiel DE,
    3. Binder RL
    : Adolescents and social media: privacy, brain development, and the law. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 44:313–21, 2016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    State v. Kohonen, 370 P.3d 16 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
  24. 24.↵
    Boston v. Athearn, 764 S.E.2d 582 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
  25. 25.↵
    1. Novo F,
    2. Pereira F,
    3. Matos M
    : Cyber-aggression among Portuguese adolescents: A study on perpetration, victim offender overlap and parental supervision. Int'l J Cyber Criminol 8:94, 2014
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Wisniewski P,
    2. Xu H,
    3. Rosson MB,
    4. Carroll JM
    : Parents just don't understand: why teens don't talk to parents about their online risk experiences, in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. New York: ACM, 2017, pp 523–40
  27. 27.↵
    1. Whittle H,
    2. Hamilton-Giachritsis C,
    3. Beech A,
    4. Collings G
    : A review of online grooming: characteristics and concerns. Aggress Viol Behavior 18:62–70, 2013
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Wachs S,
    2. D Wolf K,
    3. Pan CC
    : Cybergrooming: risk factors, coping strategies and associations with cyberbullying. Psicothema, 24:628–33, 2012
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Kotrla K
    : Domestic minor sex trafficking in the United States. Social Work 55:181–87, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    U.S. v. Alkhabaz, 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997).
  31. 31.↵
    1. Holt VL,
    2. Kernic MA,
    3. Lumley T,
    4. et al
    : Civil protection orders and risk of subsequent police-reported violence. JAMA 288:589–94, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Benitez CT,
    2. McNiel DE,
    3. Binder RL
    : Do protection orders protect? J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 38:376–85, 2010
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    U.S. v. Matusiewicz, 165 F. Supp. 3d 166 (D. Del. 2015).
  34. 34.↵
    1. Hazelwood SD,
    2. Koon-Magnin S
    : Cyber stalking and cyber harassment legislation in the United States: a qualitative analysis. Int'l J Cyber Criminol 7:155, 2013
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    U.S. v. Moreland, 207 F. Supp. 3d 1222 (U.S. Dist. Ok. 2016).
  36. 36.↵
    1. Nobles MR,
    2. Reyns BW,
    3. Fox KA,
    4. Fisher BS
    : Protection against pursuit: a conceptual and empirical comparison of cyberstalking and stalking victimization among a national sample. Just Q 31:986–1014, 2014
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    1. Sheridan LP,
    2. Grant T
    : Is cyberstalking different? Psychol Crime & L 13:627–40, 2007
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    1. Dombrowski SC,
    2. LeMasney JW,
    3. Ahia CE,
    4. Dickson SA
    : Protecting children from online sexual predators: technological, psychoeducational, and legal considerations. Prof Psychol Res Practice, 35:65, 2004
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    1. Goodno NH
    : Cyberstalking, a new crime: evaluating the effectiveness of current state and federal laws. Mo L Rev 72:125, 2007
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    1. Miller N
    : Stalking laws and implementation practices: a national review for policymakers and practitioners. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Law and Justice, 2001
  41. 41.↵
    1. Ngo FT,
    2. Paternoster R
    : Toward an understanding of the emotional and behavioral reactions to stalking: a partial test of general strain theory. Crime & Delinq 62:703–27, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    1. Dietz NA,
    2. Martin PY
    : Women who are stalked: questioning the fear standard. Violence Against Women 13:750–76, 2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    The National Center for Victims of Crime. Stalking resource center, civil stalking laws. Available at: http://victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-center/stalking-laws/civil-stalking-laws-by-state. Accessed February 13, 2018
  44. 44.↵
    National Center for Victims of Crime. Creating an effective stalking protocol, 2002. Available at: https://victimsofcrime.org/docs/src/creating-an-effective-stalking-protocol.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed February 13, 2018
  45. 45.↵
    1. Kienlen KK,
    2. Birmingham DL,
    3. Solberg KB,
    4. O'Regan JT
    : A comparative study of psychotic and nonpsychotic stalking. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 25:317–34, 1997
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. McEwan T,
    2. Mullen PE,
    3. Purcell R
    : Identifying risk factors in stalking: a review of current research. Int J Law Psychiatry 30:1–9, 2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Carlson MJ,
    2. Harris SD,
    3. Holden GW
    : Protective orders and domestic violence: risk factors for re-abuse. J Family Violence 14:205–26, 1999
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    1. Miller L
    : Stalking: Patterns, motives, and intervention strategies. Aggress Viol Behavior 17:495–506, 2012
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    1. Kamphuis JH,
    2. Emmelkamp PM
    : Stalking: a contemporary challenge for forensic and clinical psychiatry. Br J Psychiatry 176:206–9, 2000
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Meloy JR
    1. Meloy JR
    : The psychology of stalking, in The Psychology of Stalking. Edited by Meloy JR. Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V., 1998, pp 1–23
  51. 51.↵
    1. Nijdam-Jones A
    : Diagnostic typologies of stalking offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, New York, 2016
  52. 52.↵
    1. Stokes M,
    2. Newton N,
    3. Kaur A
    : Stalking, and social and romantic functioning among adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorder. J Autism Dev Disorders 37:1969–86, 2007
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    1. Roberts KA
    : Stalking following the breakup of romantic relationships: characteristics of stalking former partners. J Forensic Sci, 47:1070–77, 2002
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. James DV,
    2. Mullen PE,
    3. Pathé MT,
    4. et al
    : Stalkers and harassers of royalty: the role of mental illness and motivation. Psychol Med 39:1479–90, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. McFarlane L,
    2. Bocij P
    : An exploration of predatory behaviour in cyberspace: towards a typology of cyberstalkers. First Monday 8(9): September, 2003
  56. 56.↵
    1. Racine C,
    2. Billick S
    : Classification systems for stalking behavior. J Forensic Sci 59:250–54, 2014
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    1. Pinals DA
    (editor): Stalking: Psychiatric Perspectives and Practical Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007
  58. 58.↵
    1. Mullen PE
    : Multiple classifications of stalkers and stalking behavior available to clinicians. Psychiatric Ann 33:650–56, 2003
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    1. Purcell R,
    2. Flower T,
    3. Mullen PE
    : Adolescent stalking: offence characteristics and effectiveness of intervention orders. Trends & Issues in Crime & Crim Just 369, 2009
  60. 60.↵
    1. Logan TK,
    2. Walker R
    : Stalking: a multidimensional framework for assessment and safety planning. Trauma Viol Abuse 18:200–22, 2017
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. 61.↵
    State v. Gorthy, 145 A.3d 146 (N.J. 2016).
  62. 62.↵
    1. Standora L
    : Wacko accused of stalking Jennifer Garner is found not guilty but is sent to mental hospital. NY Daily News. March 30, 2010. Available at: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/wacko-accused-stalking-jennifer-garner-found-not-guilty-mental-hospital-article-1.177445. Accessed February 23, 2018
  63. 63.↵
    1. Ybarra ML,
    2. Langhinrichsen-Rohling J,
    3. Mitchell KJ
    : Stalking-like behavior in adolescence: prevalence, intent, and associated characteristics. Psychol Viol 7:192, 2017
    OpenUrl
  64. 64.↵
    1. Post M,
    2. Haymes L,
    3. Storey K,
    4. et al
    : Understanding stalking behaviors by individuals with autism spectrum disorders and recommended prevention strategies for school settings. J Autism Dev Dis 44:2698–706, 2014
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    Child Welfare Information Gateway. Mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect, 2015. Available at: https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/manda/. Accessed February 24, 2018
  66. 66.↵
    1. Purcell R,
    2. Moller B,
    3. Flower T,
    4. Mullen PE
    : Stalking among juveniles. Br J Psychiatry 194:451–55, 2009
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 47 (2)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 47, Issue 2
1 Jun 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Review of Statutes and the Role of the Forensic Psychiatrist in Cyberstalking Involving Youth
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A Review of Statutes and the Role of the Forensic Psychiatrist in Cyberstalking Involving Youth
Paul Elizondo, Dale E. McNiel, Renée Binder
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Jun 2019, 47 (2) 198-207; DOI: 10.29158/JAAPL.003831-19

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
A Review of Statutes and the Role of the Forensic Psychiatrist in Cyberstalking Involving Youth
Paul Elizondo, Dale E. McNiel, Renée Binder
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Jun 2019, 47 (2) 198-207; DOI: 10.29158/JAAPL.003831-19
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Overview of Cyberstalking Legislation
    • Role of the Forensic Psychiatrist
    • Conclusion and Future Directions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Mental Health and Social Correlates of Reincarceration of Youths as Adults
  • Legal and Ethics Considerations in Capacity Evaluation for Medical Aid in Dying
  • Mental Health Aftercare Availability for Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth in New York City
Show more Regular Articles

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2025 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law