Using Latent Class Analysis to Produce a Typology of Korean Stalking Based on Court Judgments

• Published date: 01 May 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241230004
• Author: Minkyung Bae,Bojeong Kang,Soo-Jung Lee
• Date: 01 May 2024

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2024, Vol. 51, No. 5, May 2024, 768 –786.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241230004

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2024 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

768

USING LATENT CLASS ANALYSIS TO PRODUCE

A TYPOLOGY OF KOREAN STALKING BASED

ON COURT JUDGMENTS

MINKYUNG BAE

BOJEONG KANG

SOO-JUNG LEE

Kyonggi University

This study was carried out to develop guidelines for more appropriate interventions for people who stalk following the

enforcement of the Stalking Crime Punishment Act. By content analysis, 407 cases of the first trial judgment data from the

start of the stalking punishment law application were collected and substituted with categorical data. Three types of stalking

persons—Aggressors, Indirect Contactors, and Approachers—were created by latent class analysis. Notable distinctions

emerged among these types, encompassing criminal history, mental health, online sexual crimes, and the frequency of con-

tact. For instance, Aggressors were individuals who displayed aggressive behaviors most frequently; Indirect Contactors

engaged in online sexual harassment against victims; and Approachers approached victims without mutual agreement.

Therefore, considering these findings would hold great significance when approaching individuals who engage in stalking

with a more comprehensive understanding. This approach aims to provide insights to enhance criminal responses and prac-

tices in South Korea.

Keywords: stalking perpetrator; intimate partner violence; stalking typology; latent class analysis

Stalking is a prevalent and severe social problem in various countries due to its repetitive

nature, ranging from violence to threats and multifaceted behavior (Bendlin et al., 2022;

Sheridan, 2000). The criminalization of stalking in countries such as Belgium, the

Netherlands, Germany, Malta, Ireland, Austria, and Italy had led to legislators amending

existing penal codes to cover stalking behavior (De Fazio, 2009). However, the absence of

anti-stalking laws in other European countries resulted in prosecutions only when the

behavior amounts to crimes prosecutable under different norms (De Fazio, 2009). The crim-

inalization of stalking has come to the fore due to its repetitive, innocuous, and multifaceted

nature. Due to their continuity and repetitiveness, current laws alone were not always suit-

able for protecting victims from stalking, and many countries’ legislative actions included

stalking protection orders (Song, 2023). Compared to other countries, the South Korean Act

AUTHORS’ NOTE: We hope this study will enhance the understanding of stalking, foster enhanced judicial

responses, and contribute to a safer society.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to

Minkyung Bae, Department of Forensic Psychology, Kyonggi University, 154-42, Gwanggyosan-ro,

Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea 16227; e-mail: minkyungb22@gmail.com.

1230004CJBXXX10.1177/00938548241230004Criminal Justice and BehaviorBae et al.

research-article2024

Bae et al. / KOREAN STALKING TYPOLOGY VIA LCA 769

on the Punishment of Stalking Crimes (abbreviated, Stalking Punishment Act) was newly

enacted and took effect on October 21, 2021.

Before the Act, the Misdemeanor Punishment Act’s Article 3 (1) 41 defined continuous

harassment or stalking as “repeated to ask for visits or companionship, follow, hide, and

wait against the other party’s explicit will.” This was seen as insufficient to regulate stalking

given the seriousness of the crime (Chang, 2017; Jung, 2017; C. H. Kim, 2013; J. D. Kim,

2015). The current Stalking Punishment Act’s sentencing standards were also limited and

insubstantial, leading to varying sentences without specific standards, with ineffective and

inconsistent punishment (J. Y. Kim, 2022; Ko, 2022; Lee, 2021; Shim & Lee, 2022).

Stalking individuals were often sentenced for violating the law, but a lack of understanding

of the crime can lead to inaccurate intervention. Therefore, legal supplementation seemed

necessary to reduce recidivism to address ambiguous sentencing standards, such as adding

a weighted punishment for the consequential weighting of injuries or fatalities (D. H. Han

& Heo, 2022). In recent decades, cyberstalking had also become a criminalized issue in

many countries such as India, with the rise in digitalization and globalization (Halder,

2015). While it is reasonable that the current act includes cyberstalking, it does not include

all instances (M. K. Han, 2021). It is important to note that cyberstalking is also becoming

more prevalent due to the increased use of the internet and the easier accessibility of per-

sonal data online (Parsons-Pollard & Moriarty, 2009), and it can cause equivalent and

serious psychological damage as traditional stalking (Maple et al., 2011). Therefore, it is

crucial to assess the characteristics of stalking crimes to target various offenses, including

cyberstalking.

Stalking behaviors are usually characterized by unwanted contact, following a victim,

and interference with property. These behaviors can have long-term psychological and

social effects on a victim (Abelvik-Lawson & Bermingham, 2018). Furthermore, stalking

has the potential to develop into other crimes including sexual assault and murder (Abelvik-

Lawson & Bermingham, 2018). Therefore, a suitable criminal statute and intervention

appear to be important in stalking while the ideal situation is challenging to come across in

current South Korea. The Stalking Punishment Act in South Korea has been subject to 13

partial modification bills, and its main flaws include a limited definition of stalking behav-

ior, a lack of sanctions for disregarding emergency measures, and the classification of stalk-

ing crimes as not punishable against the victim’s will (M. K. Han, 2022; J. H. Kim et al.,

2021; J. Y. Kim, 2022; Shim & Lee, 2022). It seems that by aiding in an expanded knowl-

edge of stalking as a conceptual framework, identifying and classifying stalking subtypes

may become a bridge to exposing efficient remedies appropriate for stalking scenarios.

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AND STALKING

Stalking may evolve into a violent crime depending on risk factors such as prior intimate

relationships, threats, revenge motives, and an assault-related criminal history (Eke et al.,

2011; B. Rosenfeld & Lewis, 2005). Ex-intimate stalking is common and makes up the

single largest group of stalking cases (Chan, 2021; Spitzberg et al., 2010; White et al.,

2022). Unfortunately, many pieces of the literature suggest that stalking former intimates is

more likely to involve physical aggression than others (M. K. Han, 2021; Kienlen et al.,

1997; Sheridan et al., 2003; Sheridan & Davies, 2001; Song, 2023). This trend is even more

pronounced in South Korea. Research that analyzed 336 South Korean court judgments of