Subjectivity and jurisdiction as law enforcement challenges to cyberstalking

Cyberstalking

The rapid changes witnessed over the course of the last two decades has demonstrated how technology and, more specifically, the internet, have expanded the rule of law and the accompanying challenges that lie in enforcing the law. The purpose of this essay is to describe the greatest challenge facing law enforcement agencies in investigating exploitation, cyber stalking and obscenity. This challenge is the mere scope of problems that this platform has created. This essay will also discuss how jurisdictional issues often interfere with the true and honest law enforcement in this area.

Subjectivity as the Leading Challenge

Living in a free society, where free speech is protected by federal law, subjective differences often arise when discussing what is obscene or not. This subjective quality of human behavior is the root of all these issues and should be respected as a problem that must be solved, yet individual liberty and freedom of expression also needs to be protected as well. This is the difficult framework law enforcement officials are presented with and creates the boundaries on which this investigation is conducted within.

Each locality has its each unique and individual set of behavioral standards that are very difficult to standardize and objectify. This is the greatest challenge to law enforcement officials as their application of "reasonable" must accurately reflect the standards of the community. This is extremely difficult and asks to remove the human element out of the law enforcement official. Too much is expected out of these professionals and it is time where law and order is understood in much more tolerant and open minded manner.

The Issue of Jurisdiction

The outcome for a person victimized by cyberstalking may vary considerably depending on where the person lives and the cyber skills of the officers at the agency that the victim would report the stalking to. Some state and local agencies also have been frustrated by jurisdictional limitations. In many instances, the cyberstalker may be located in a different city or state than the victim, making it more difficult (and, in some cases, all but impossible) for the local authority to investigate the incident. Even if a law enforcement agency is willing to pursue a case across state lines, it may be difficult to obtain assistance from out-of-state agencies when the conduct is limited to harassing e-mail messages and no actual violence has occurred. A number of cases have been referred to the FBI and U.S. Attorney's offices because the victim and suspect were located in different states and the local agency was not able to pursue the investigation.

The lack of adequate statutory authority also can limit law enforcement's response to cyberstalking incidents. At least 16 states have stalking statutes that explicitly cover electronic communications, and cyberstalking may be covered under general stalking statutes in other states. It may not, however, meet the statutory definition of stalking in the remainder. In many cases, cyberstalking will involve threats to kill, kidnap, or injure the person, reputation, or property of another, either on or offline and, as such, may be prosecuted under other federal or state laws that do not relate directly to stalking, (Shinder, 2011).

Possible Solutions

States should share information when it is pertinent and necessary for the reasonable pursuit of justice. Subjective issues and interpretations of laws cannot be avoided and should be addressed in a manner that best suits the spirit of the law and seeks to find a balanced solution to the problem. State lines are invisible but also need to be respected as well. Not every case will require such extraordinary efforts, so prudence wisdom and understanding are all perquisite for law enforcement officials dealing with this complicated issue.