On June 1, 1992, a leading headline of The Washington Post read: “D.C. WOMAN IS FATALLY SHOT IN BOSTON BY EX-BOYFRIEND.”  Kristin Lardner, a 21-year-old art student at Boston’s Museum School, was the innocent victim doomed at the lethal hands of former boyfriend Michael Cartier, whom she had only dated for around two months.  Lugubriously, this tragedy could have been prevented had Massachusetts taken stalking more seriously in the early 1990s.  Cartier had been arrested over twelve times in Massachusetts (mostly for violent offenses, including violations of multiple restraining orders from women and former girlfriends, trespassing, breaking and entering, animal cruelty, and injecting his own blood into a ketchup dispenser at a restaurant) and spent over a year in jail for threatening to kill multiple past girlfriends and vigorously attacking one with scissors.  After being beaten, kicked, and harassed by Cartier, Lardner got a restraining order issued against him. Just eighteen days later, and despite the court order, he accosted her at her workplace and brutally murdered her.

Stalking is exceptionally more dangerous than the average person might think.  76% of women that were murdered by an intimate partner were stalked first; 85% of women who survived murder attempts were stalked first; and 54% of these murder victims reported stalking to the police before they were killed by their stalkers.  When the police are aware of this danger more than half the time women are murdered, there is something wrong with the system that is supposed to protect the lives of stalking victims.

Nonetheless, there have been a great improvement in the efficiency of stalking laws since the slaying of Kristin Lardner.  California was the first state to pass a specific anti-stalking law in 1990 (after four Orange County women were murdered despite restraining orders) and all fifty states followed suit by the early 2000s.  Early on, these laws variedwidely and the two general elements of stalking (specific intent and credible threat) were hard to prove.  Now, the keyelement needed to begin prosecution in most jurisdictions is that the stalker’s conduct “would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her own safety, to fear for the safety of another person, or to fear damage or destruction of his or her property.”  This sets up a much clearer case against the perpetrator and inflicts penalty faster and more certain.

Although the evolution of anti-stalking legislature has enhanced the chances of safety for stalking victims, there are still flaws that leave fear and unease lingering.  A piece of paper does not stop the mentally ill, and often the mentally ill are not properly assessed, even after they have committed acts of violence.  Michael Cartier was required to attend a mental health program before even meeting Lardner and was released from a mental health center simply because he denied that he had threatened any women.  Just this year, a rape suspect (who was under court order not to leave his home) murdered his accuser just two months after being released from jail.  Also this year, celebrity therapist Amie Harwick was murdered by her stalker despite having filed two restraining orders against him.  Although stalking legislation has drastically improved, deaths still occur that could have been obviated had these known stalkers been properly evaluated.

Statistics show that mental disorders are common among stalkers.  This distinctly demonstrates why rationality does not phase them and why a simple restraining order is not enough to protect the women they target.  Although the law has developed remarkably since the late 20th century, when it comes to stalking, a stricter mandatory mental health evaluation would likely better protect the innocent women who are killed by their stalkers regardless of the consequences or jailtime assigned to them.  Some of these violent offenders are too dangerous for society until they are rehabilitated rather than punished.