I've been reading How to Stop a Stalker by Mike Proctor, a former detective in Westminster, California.

I'm fascinated by some aspects of forensic psychology, so I was hoping the book would discuss the psychology of stalkers and how to discourage them. However, Proctor's book is more about how stalking is defined as a crime and how police handle it. There are several chapters on personal safety and security gear, but none of that is specific to stalking. This book just wasn't about what I thought it would be about.

Some of Proctor's policework is a little disconcerting. It's not that he's doing anything illegal or even unethical, but I'm used to thinking about police activity in the context of victimless crimes, where pretty much everything police do is wrong. So when proctor describes searching a stalker's house, I feel uncomfortable, even though I know that stalkers are real criminals.

Actually, I should clarify: The stalkers Proctor talks about are all clearly criminals, but I'm a bit less certain that everyone prosecuted under the anti-stalking laws was as bad as these guys. I mean, human behavior didn't suddenly change in 1990, so why did we suddenly have all these laws against stalking? It has the smell of a moral panic, like satanic ritual abuse or sexting, and nothing good ever comes from that.

Part of what worries me is that anti-stalking laws seem like an attempt to punish stalkers for the implied threat of their conduct rather that for their actual conduct. As long as the implied threat is an intended threat (i.e. the threat does not exist only in the minds of the victim and the police) that seems like a legitimate reason for punishment, but I suspect there's room for abuse.

Proctor tells the stories of several terrible stalking incidents. Actually, "incident" is the wrong word. Being pursued by a serious stalker is like being in a low-intensity war. It drags on for years, and you never know when something bad is going to happen.

What's amazing to me is how ineffective the police seem to be. Here you have a guy harassing someone, making threats, breaking into their house, vandalizing their car, and it goes on for years without the stalker receiving any punishment. Yet somehow the police find the time to arrest a guy for being naked in his own home.

Although I didn't get what I was looking for from this book, I did find a few passages in Proctor's description of how a stalking trial works that will amuse or infuriate some of my readers:

Once the defense counsel has gathered up the entire discovery information and has made at least a brief review, she may go to the presiding judge and ask for what she feels is a reasonable disposition to resolve the case---in other words, what it will take to close out the case. The judge then reviews the facts of the case and gives the defense attorney an ideas as to whether probation will be appropriate in the case, or, if a jail sentence is warranted, the approximate length of the sentence. The defense counsel then discusses this information with the defendant, who can either accept or deny the offered sentence. (That is, what the district attorney and the defense have agreed is a reasonable sentence.) Sometimes, though not often, the defense attorney may push for his client to plead guilty to the charges, but his client may fail to cooperate. This is known in the trade as a "lack of client control." In this situation, the defense counsel is forced to go to trial.

Yes, because the client's stubborn insistence is the only reason a defense lawyer would ever go to trial. Maybe Proctor is just so good that he's never given a D.A. a weak case.

After the prosecuting attorney is finished with his questions, the defense counsel gets a turn. It is the defense counsel's job to make sure none of his client's rights are violated, and to defened the client against the charges, if possible. Unfortunately, it is our opinion that too many defense attorneys attempt to liberate their clients by clouding the issues. This is accomplished by trying to put words in your mouth, back you into a corner, or make you look confused and unsure of yourself. This is usually done in an effort to sway the jury into wonderin whether you are sure of the facts of the case. It may not be right, but perception planse a definite rols in a trial setting. If the jury thinks you are lying or confused, it will cause problems for the prosecution. In all fairness, we do know defense attorneys who actually do what they are supposed to do, that is, defend their client in a true and just manner, but it has been our experience that these individuals individuals are few and far between.

 I sure hope that's true if I ever need a defense lawyer.