Overview
Stalking is a behaviour of intentionally pursuing a person, appearing in their homes unwelcome, unwanted irregular visits to the person's workplace or business ( Branscum, Fallik, Garcia, Eason & Gursahaney, 2019) . Other acts would also include frequent harassing phone calls, disturbing messages and leaving letters with the prior conscience that it would result in the other person perceived discomfort. It can extend further to visible acts of destruction of other person properties. The handout is based on a case between clement and the state concerning the crime of stalking. The appellant is prosecuted under the stalking statute, which explains stalking as involvement in actions that hinder other people from carrying on their affairs in tranquillity. The offence of stalking highlighted on the handout include crime carried out on a person's family member.
Elements of Crime of Stalking
According to the stalking statute legislation, stalking is depicted as a deliberate series of repetitive, unwarranted pursuits that a sound individual considers as toxic or prompting fear ( Lowney & Best, 2017) . The statute indicates all the possible occurrences that can be deemed as stalking. The actor engages in conducts in which they believe the other people will regard as threatening. This includes situations that could cause bodily harm or death to the victim or any of their family members. Stalking also extends to offences committed against other people's properties. The statute also explains stalking as knowingly or reasonably engaging in practices that generate alarm of physical distress either to the targeted individuals, their family members or properties ( Branscum et al., 2019) . Empirical literature finds stalking to be the precursor of violence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Do You Agree with the Court of Appeals that the Statute is Not Unconstitutionally Vague?
Yes, I support the court of appeal conclusion on the absence of vagueness in the stalking statute. All laws carry a presumption of validity over and are considered to as unconstitutionally vague if they are deemed unclear or insufficient to convict a suspect. In this case study, the suspect was sentenced under the statute of stalking of 1997. So, pragmatically the law holds considering the fact the complaints filed by Jennifer against Nathan is confined within the stated period. The things needed to be examined; however, is whether Nathan is guilty as charged as he claims his marriage was at the verge of collapsing and his main aim was to salvage it. Firstly, from federal evidence provided before the jury, Nathan and Jennifer were divorced. We learn that Nathan was stalking on Jennifer as he was not comfortable with Jennifer finding another man. He is quoted saying that the only thing that could separate her from Jennifer was death or occurrence of the apocalypse; hence the ruled against Nathan's claims of salvaging his marriage.
In the passing of the vagueness problem, the statue gives a person of average intellect a prospect to comprehend things the law prohibits and provides guidelines with which directive can be implicated ( Branscum et al., 2019) . In establishing the factual background to the case, it specifies what conduct is prohibited. For instance, stalking is clearly defined as being involved in activities with the prior conscience that it would cause discomfort in another person due to fear of physical harm or death. Nathan is therefore on notice of prohibited conduct and is aware that his act threatens the peace of Jennifer in her own space. Thus, with all legal procedures determining vagueness observed, the problem no longer exist, the criminal statute is not unconstitutionally vague.
Is the Evidence, in this case, Sufficient to Support a Stalking Conviction?
The proof provided in this scenario is sufficient to convict Nathan for stalking. Even though he confidently argues that he did not harm Jennifer, his actions threatenedJennifer's affairs. Jennifer was not safe at her own home after the divorce as Nathan would technically show up in her compound on no notice. On her filling report, Jennifer recalls a devastating moment when Nathan appeared running across her swimming pool area in her apartment. Stalking statute does not require Jenifer to be physically assaulted by Nathan to be deemed guilty. The evidence provided by Jennifer indicates that Nathan frequently appeared in Jennifer's home and place of work. Nathan admits to all these allegations. The state provides evidence that He stalked on Jennifer on a different occasion, February 18, 1997, February 25, 1997, March 29, 1997, and April 4, 1997. Alice Wooten, a security officer at Jennifer's place, accounts to the statement that she saw Nathan following Jennifer to her place of work. Jennifer's friend also saw Nathan stopping near Jennifer's apartment, honking and uttering abusive sentiments on Jennifer. All these shreds of evidence are enough to convince the jury to charge Nathan of stalking.
Conclusion
Nathan and Jennifer's incidence is among many rampant cases of stalking reported in several states of the United States today . Little was known about stalking at that time. Its criminalization began afterwards. Even though governing laws were implemented, the statutes are still considered a patchwork of legislation open to the future extensive research study. Although stalking has proved to be a fundamental legal problem, there's a need to borrow psychological expertise to aid in giving a measurable incite on what comprises stalking. This is vital, especially when authorities fail to take into account the nature of criminal harassment. Malicious stalkers might outwit prosecution sometimes maybe because of incompetence and reluctance to label various cases of innoxious acts as holistically threatening.
References
Branscum, C., Fallik, S. W., Garcia, K., Eason, B., & Gursahaney, K. (2019). Stalking State Statutes: A Critical Content Analysis and Reflection on Social Science Research. Women & Criminal Justice , 1-22.
Lowney, K. S., & Best, J. (2017). Stalking strangers and lovers: Changing media typifications of a new crime problem. In Images of issues (pp. 33-58). Routledge.
