Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Technology facilitated sexual violence (TFSV) defines a range of behaviours where digital technologies are used to facilitate various sexually based offences, both virtually and face-to-face (Henry & Powell, 2016). A form of this is ‘Cyberstalking’. The phenomenon of cyberstalking has emerged from the predatory nature of conventional stalking delivered through the use of electronic communication methods. The increasing integration of technology-driven communications into everyday personal, work and social life provides an additional, more accessible and seemingly anonymous approach for perpetrators to target and pursue their victims (Alexy, Burgess, Baker & Smoyak, 2005). Despite not being the most recent of cyber-related crimes to prevail, the breadth of research into the widespread behaviour is of a minimum, with researchers displaying a tendency to overlook the behaviour, regarding physical and cyberstalking to be interrelated rather than distinct entities (Sheridan & Grant, 2007). Issues have arisen from this, with the inclination to disregard the signs of an incident of cyberstalking, with perhaps the passive attitude to wait for a more ‘serious’ action to take place e.g. physical violence (Ariyadasa, 2019). This prevents the matter being reported and the necessary response being taken to inhibit further events taking place.
The issue with failing to recognise situations of cyberstalking due to the perceived similarities of that with conventional stalking has seldomly been the focus of previous literature, and the possible factors underlying why such poor perceptions of cyberstalking occur in comparison to easily identifiable situations of physical stalking has not been understood (Alexy et al, 2005). Further exploration of this concept, that perceptions of cyberstalking behaviours differ to that of conventional stalking perceptions due to a difference of location knowledge, and how this can be educated upon to increase awareness and enhance legislations, is investigated further in this study.
Research has predominantly focused on the criminal act of stalking, with researchers identifying how little scientific research had been published on cyberstalking (Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002), with minimal development since.
With no strict definition having been provided for either act, legislations typically report and prosecute the behaviour of stalking by focusing on the conventional behaviours associated with it. These behaviours are identified under section 2A (3) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which include but are not exhaustive of: ‘following a person’; ‘contacting or attempting to contact a person’; ‘watching or spying on a person’; ‘interfering with any property in the possession of a person’, or ‘publishing any statement or other material relating or purporting to relate to a person’ (‘Protection from Harassment Act 1997’, 1997). Fundamentally, these contribute to persistent and unwanted attention and inducing fear within the victim.
When defining cyberstalking, similar to conventional stalking, there is no set definition. Previously the term has emerged to describe the “repeated use” of electronic communication methods, including e-mail, the internet or related digital devices, as tools to harass, alarm or threaten “a specific individual or group” (D’Ovidio and Doyle, 2003). This can present in different ways including threats, slander, defamation and harassment (DeMatteo, Wagage & Fairfax-Columbo, 2017). Potential motives behind this may be for control, possession or intimidation purposes, or to accumulate other personal information for initiation of other cyber-crimes such as identity theft and fraud (McFarlane and Bocij, 2003). These methods have been identified to typically elicit further unwanted physical interaction, as the element of anonymity within cyber-driven behaviours allows perpetrators to gather considerable amounts of personal information about their victim whilst maintaining their undisclosed identity (Nobles, Reyns, Fox & Fisher, 2012).
When considering the demographic statistics of common perpetrators and victims of cyberstalking it must be retained that due to the unreliable and infrequent reporting of the offence any figures that have been recorded may not represent the true reality of cyberstalking incidences. However, of the documentation that does exist, literature findings vary. Research typically identifies perpetrators of cyberstalking to be male with victims being female, as the ECHO Survey (2011) reported twice as many females to experience cyberstalking than men whereas Smoker and March (2017) report females to more likely engage in cyberstalking behaviour, often in retaliation of romantic suffering. The manipulation of gender and perceptions of common perpetrators of stalking behaviours have often been a focus point within the literature, as researchers have commonly found participants to identify a guilty verdict when the perpetrator is male, rather than female (Dunlap, Hodell, Golding & Wasarhaley, 2012; Spitzberg, Cupach & Ciceraro, 2010). However this assumption has been challenged by Yanowitz (2006), whom found American women to be significantly more likely to perceive undesired courting behaviours as stalking, suggesting victimisation levels to be considerably higher amongst females due to the increased likelihood to perceive themselves as victims, in comparison to men who would not. With no restrictions on age, ages ranging between 30-39 have been found to be most common in becoming victim to cyberstalking, however cases have been identified amongst teenage and pensioner age populations. The most commonly identified environments for cyberstalking to manifest from are social networking platforms, blogging forums and internet chat-rooms (ECHO Survey, 2011).
Substantial damage can arise on emotional, physical and mental wellbeing becoming a victim of cyberstalking, with victims previously reporting significant increases in anxiety and changes to their lifestyle. Previous research has noted the emotional and physical impacts on victims associated with cyberstalking incidences, including; feeling fearful of potential injury, damage to reputation, and betrayal; elevated anger and paranoia levels; weight changes and increased tiredness and phobic manifestations (agoraphobia), (Maran & Begotti, 2019; Jansen van Rensburg, 2017).
Research has also shown a significant correlation between perpetrators of cyberstalking and Dark Tetrad personality traits, with offenders typically exhibiting higher levels of psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism and sadism (Smoker & March, 2017). Paulhus (2014) suggests cyberstalking behaviours to be characterised through a sense of superiority and entitlement which is often reflected in the possessive nature of perpetrators of the offence. These factors can be considered as crucial aspects when developing cyberstalking interventions (Smoker & March, 2017).
The exact prevalence of cyberstalking, much like other cyber-driven crimes is unknown. The criminal act of stalking was first prosecuted in California in 1990 as a result of an increased celebrity appeal and desire for requited love and intimacy with such high-profile figures, however had not been introduced in all American states until 1999 (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). The offence was first addressed in the UK by the Protection of Harassment Act 1997, however with little direction for legal professionals on how best to help victims the offence was addressed and amended by The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, specifying a method of dealing with stalking encompassing cyberstalking. The number of harassment and cyberstalking offences was reported to have risen considerably between 2013-2015 (Maran & Begotti, 2019). This timeline cross-culturally reflects the inadequate attention given to both occurrences and victims of this grievous offence.
However, given the generally low and frequently unreliable level of reporting cyberstalking amongst other crimes committed online, any police figures that are available do not reflect an accurate representation of the true prevalence of the offence (Budd, Mattinson & Myhill, 2000; Finn, 2004). The Electronic Communication Harassment Observation (ECHO) pilot survey in 2011 was devised in aim of raising awareness of cyberstalking behaviours, the impacts on victims following this experience and trauma-related beliefs they have reported. The survey was designed to capture the true essence of cyberstalking and to highlight the need for greater attention. The report detailed figures from the Crown Prosecution Service showing during 2010 33% of stalking incidences were perpetrated through e-mail, 32% by text message and 8% via social media platforms. Police figures as of December 2018 recorded 15% of harassment and stalking offences to possess an online element, however a further breakdown of offences was not reported, as statistics of stalking offences are often published collectively rather than independent behaviours (Office for National Statistics, 2019).
The issue with considering these statistics in light of stalking offences is that often a report is made following another, perhaps more violent offence such as physical assault. This does not reflect the true reality of stalking and the effects it can have on victims, exacerbating the risks associated with inaccurate perceptions of stalking and cyberstalking behaviours. An increase in research surrounding the importance of successful identification of cyberstalking behaviours would expectantly encourage a more precise approach to documenting this.
A possible reason for a lack of accurate reporting and police statistics is the perception of and attitude towards victims of cyberstalking by police officers and legal professionals (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998; Morris, Anderson & Murray, 2002). Considering most of this research may represent out-dated views from previous times, a recent study investigating police officers perceptions of and attitudes towards cyber-harassment from Millman, Winder and Griffiths (2017), highlights the importance of accurate perceptions and identification of cyberstalking behaviours and other electronically-driven crimes amongst legal professionals. The study addressed police officers’ perceptions towards cyberstalking and harassment offences via semi-structured interviews, focusing on three central themes; online accessibility, threat, and the unhelpful victim. Online accessibility revealed perceptions of victim-blame, whereby police officers perceive a higher level of self-disclosure and use of the internet presents a greater vulnerability to becoming a cyber-victim. Participants conveyed their frustration at victims lack of awareness of this and the unwillingness to change their online pattern of behaviour, expressing some responsibility should be taken by the victim as a result. Extracts of interviews focusing on the threat element of cyber-stalking highlighted the officers perceived credibility of threats reported by victims, due to the considerable geographical distance between victim and perpetrator, emphasising legal action would only be enforced when the threats prove to be credible. Participants commented on their difficulty when dealing with “unhelpful” victims, claiming they are often “barriers” to their investigations, as similar to their views towards online accessibility, they perceive victims to “not help themselves” when preventing becoming a victim of cyber-harassment.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.