The Legalization of Stalking Through Systems of Authority: A Social, Behavioral Health, and Correctional Concern

Written, edited, created, and published By Nisa Pasha — Executive Political Health Guru, Peer Counselor, and Educator, MentalHealthRevival.org

A voice against legalization of stalking from a mental health consumer: The perception and outlook

I speak as a mental health consumer,

not a case number,

not a chart,

not a symptom wrapped in a diagnosis.

I speak as a woman who has lived inside the quiet shadows

of neighborhoods where eyes follow you

long before cameras do.

In the places where the majority is struggling,

and the minority is blamed,

surveillance doesn’t always wear a badge,

or a uniform,

or a lens.

Sometimes it wears neighbors,

staff members,

informants,

or people who say they’re here to help—

The ones who are observed,

evaluated,

whispered about,

reported on—

it feels like legalized stalking,

disguised as care.

Because when you are mentally ill,

or simply labeled as such,

people believe they have the right

to study your walk,

your tone,

your silence,

your stress,

your breathing,

your smallest mistake.

And in communities like mine—

Black, Brown, immigrant, underserved,

where trauma is common

and resources are not—

being watched becomes a way of life.

Not because we’re dangerous,

but because we’re different.

Not because we’re unstable,

but because we’re misunderstood.

Not because we’re guilty,

but because we don’t fit

the comfort of those in power.

This is the lived experience,

the unspoken truth,

the hidden weight we carry:

When the systems meant to help

begin to feel like they’re hunting.

When support turns into surveillance.

When observation becomes control.

When care starts to look

like a continuous investigation

with no offense committed.

So I speak for the ones who can’t.

For the ones too tired,

too judged,

too documented,

too dismissed

to explain what it feels like

to be watched

as if your very existence

is a risk assessment.

This is my voice,

my story,

my clarity.

And this is the lens

through which many of us

in marginalized communities

have come to understand

the quiet, legal ways

we are followed,

evaluated,

monitored,

and misunderstood.

This is not paranoia.

This is lived experience.

This is truth unmasked.

This is the beginning

of speaking the unspeakable.

want next.t somehow always watch a little too close.

In marginalized areas,

you learn to feel the difference

between concern

and monitoring,

between support

and surveillance,

between help

and control.

They call it policy.

They call it protocol.

Sometimes they even call it protection.

But to the ones who live it—

The Legalization of Stalking Through Systems of Authority

A Social, Behavioral, and Structural Analysis

In many communities, what individuals experience as stalking, covert surveillance, or behavioral monitoring can feel “legalized” because it is embedded within systems that hold institutional authority. These systems include:

• Correctional systems

• Mental health and behavioral health sectors

• Leadership structures

• Informant-based networks or community watchers

While these systems are meant to provide safety, accountability, or care, they can sometimes create environments where individuals feel continuously observed, judged, tracked, or psychologically pressured—without transparency or proper boundaries.

1. Systemic Surveillance as “Legalized Stalking”

In correctional or behavioral institutions, surveillance is often justified as:

• behavior monitoring

• risk assessment

• compliance checking

• public safety measures

But when these practices expand beyond their intended scope—especially without consent—they can mimic stalking-like behavior, such as:

• tracking one’s movements

• monitoring private habits

• analyzing personal relationships

• documenting speech, appearance, or emotional expression

• reporting informal observations to leadership

• whisper networks of information passing

For individuals with trauma histories, this can feel like a continuation of past victimization.

2. The Mental Health Lens: When Observation Becomes Intrusion

In behavioral health settings, staff may:

• over-analyze emotions

• misinterpret autonomy as instability

• treat independence as defiance

• label spiritual or cultural practices as symptoms

This can lead to:

• unjustified scrutiny

• loss of personal agency

• fear of retaliation or misdiagnosis

• feeling watched even outside clinical encounters

This creates an environment where people feel “studied” rather than supported.

3. Leadership and Informants: Power Without Accountability

Some systems rely on:

• informant behavior

• peer monitoring

• staff whisper networks

• hierarchical reporting chains

These structures can produce:

• rumor-based decision making

• character judgments disguised as “data”

• biased surveillance of individuals perceived as different, outspoken, or noncompliant

• internalized targeting of women, minorities, or trauma survivors

For the person being examined, it feels like:

“Everyone is watching me, but no one is helping me.”

4. The Disproportionate Impact on Women, Trauma Survivors, and Minorities

Women—especially:

• women of color

• Muslim women

• single women

• trauma survivors

• those deemed “nonconforming” or “too independent”

—are more likely to be scrutinized through:

• cultural stereotypes

• moral assumptions

• hyper-watching of their lifestyle or dietary habits

• questions about purity, compliance, or worthiness

This makes “behavioral surveillance” feel personal, invasive, and unjust.

5. The Psychological Effect: Living Under Invisible Observation

Long-term exposure to system-backed monitoring creates:

• anxiety

• hypervigilance

• distrust in institutions

• social isolation

• difficulty establishing healthy relationships

• the belief that one’s privacy no longer exists

This emotional burden mirrors the effects of classic stalking—but with the added weight of systemic legitimacy.

6. Why This Feels Like a “Legalized” Form of Stalking

Because institutions:

• have authority

• have paperwork and policies

• operate under professional titles

• rarely self-monitor

• do not disclose informal observation practices

…the person being observed has little power to challenge the behavior.

Thus, it feels legalized, even when ethically questionable.

7. Pathways Toward Protection, Awareness, and Reform

Communities, agencies, and leaders must:

• set boundaries around observation

• implement trauma-informed practices

• remove informant-style models

• prevent misuse of behavioral labels

• train staff on privacy and ethics

• empower clients with transparency and autonomy

  
  

I. SYSTEMIC SURVEILLANCE AS “LEGALIZED STALKING”

CATEGORY	DESCRIPTION (Brief Sentence)	IMPACT ON MENTAL CLARITY	IMPACT ON MENTAL HEALTH	IMPACT ON DECISION-MAKING
II.1 Over-Pathologizing Behavior	Normal actions mistaken for symptoms.	Creates confusion and self-doubt.	Raises anxiety about being misunderstood.	Leads to second-guessing natural behavior.
II.2 Power Imbalance with Clinicians	Staff hold unequal control.	Causes hesitation and mental shutdown.	Increases dependency or fear of speaking honestly.	Reduces autonomy in choosing treatment.
II.3 Boundary Violations Through Observation	Watching beyond therapeutic need.	Disrupts ability to think calmly.	Triggers hypervigilance and emotional distress.	Decision-making becomes defensive rather than confident.
III.1 Informal Surveillance Networks	Rumor-based reporting systems.	Clouds judgment due to uncertainty about who is trustworthy.	Heightens paranoia or discomfort.	Causes avoidance in seeking help or resources.
III.2 Leadership-Enforced Monitoring	Leaders encourage constant updates.	Distracts from personal clarity due to over-awareness.	Increases pressure and feelings of being targeted.	Reduces willingness to express needs honestly.
III.3 Concern Reporting as Control	Reports used as leverage.	Mental fog from fear of being penalized.	Creates emotional instability and mistrust.	Decisions become compliance-based rather than personal choice.
IV.1 Gendered Surveillance	Women judged more strictly.	Internal conflict about expressing emotion.	Emotional suppression and frustration.	Decision-making becomes cautious and self-limiting.
IV.2 Racial & Cultural Misinterpretation	Culture misunderstood as instability.	Cognitive stress from constantly having to explain self.	Feels invalidated or targeted.	Leads to over-filtering speech and actions.
IV.3 Trauma Survivors Targeted	Fear misread as disorder.	Trauma responses reinforced mentally.	Increases symptoms of PTSD or anxiety.	Decisions influenced by fear rather than empowerment.
V.1 Internalized Hypervigilance	Feeling watched at all times.	Interrupts focus and calm thinking.	Fuels anxiety and stress cycles.	Decisions are rushed or overly cautious.
V.2 Loss of Trust in Systems	Avoiding help due to distrust.	Mental exhaustion from handling issues alone.	Worsens depression, isolation, or distress.	Avoidance of professional guidance.
V.3 Identity Distortion & Exhaustion	Confusion and self-doubt.	Clouded self-perception.	Emotional fatigue and destabilization.	Difficulty making confident, healthy choices.
VI.1 Transparent Practices	Clear rules for monitoring.	Improves clarity and reduces fear.	Supports emotional safety.	Enables informed, confident decisions.
VI.2 Trauma-Informed Training	Culturally aware, respectful care.	Reduces misinterpretation stress.	Builds trust and psychological stability.	Encourages collaborative choices.
VI.3 Ending Informal Networks	No gossip-based reporting.	Calms mental tension.	Increases fairness and emotional security.	Encourages more open participation.
VI.4 Client Rights & Advocacy	Empowering clients with knowledge.	Strengthens mental clarity and confidence.	Enhances self-esteem and safety.	Leads to healthier, assertive decisions.

 SYSTEMIC SURVEILLANCE AS “LEGALIZED STALKING”

Section Introduction

This section explores how formal institutions—built to protect, correct, or care—can unintentionally reproduce the psychological impact of stalking. Surveillance becomes normalized through policy, environment, and culture. Instead of physical following or digital intrusion, the “stalking” occurs as behavioral tracking, documentation, and silent observation. Although legal, its effects mirror coercive control.

1. Institutional Monitoring Practices

Analytical Description:Systems like correctional facilities and behavioral programs often collect detailed information on individuals, including habits, speech, relationships, and emotional expressions. While designed for safety, these systems can overreach.

Key Characteristics:

• Routine documentation of private behavior

• Tracking movement within facilities or programs

• Recording interactions and conversations

• Frequent wellness or compliance checks that feel intrusive

Impact:The person experiences a loss of autonomy and privacy, feeling constantly evaluated rather than supported.

2. Surveillance Normalized Through Policy

Analytical Description:Policies intended to ensure accountability can inadvertently justify excessive observation. These rules may not distinguish between healthy oversight and psychological harm.

Key Characteristics:

• Policies written with broad interpretation

• Staff empowered to report “concerns” without proof

• Mandatory monitoring mistaken as unlimited access

Impact:Surveillance becomes an unspoken expectation, legitimizing behavior that resembles stalking under the umbrella of professional duty.

3. Ethical Blind Spots in Institutional Culture

Informative Description:Institutions are often task-oriented and risk-averse, which leads to a culture of hyper-monitoring.

Key Characteristics:

• Staff rewarded for “catching issues”

• Suspicion normalized as precaution

• Overemphasis on compliance instead of wellness

Impact:Clients feel watched, judged, or misunderstood, leading to mistrust and heightened anxiety.

II. MENTAL HEALTH LENS: WHEN OBSERVATION BECOMES INTRUSION

Section Introduction

Mental health and behavioral health sectors are meant to be therapeutic environments. However, the very tools designed to understand clients—evaluation, note-taking, assessment, diagnosis—can be intrusive when misused, misinterpreted, or culturally biased. This section exposes how “help” can morph into harmful scrutiny.

1. Over-Pathologizing Normal Human Behavior

Analytical Description:Clients may have their identity, personality, or culture interpreted as symptoms.

Key Characteristics:

• Emotional expression labeled as instability

• Independence viewed as noncompliance

• Spiritual or cultural behaviors pathologized

• Trauma responses misread as disorders

Impact:Clients fear being misunderstood or mislabeled, feeling as if every action is under a microscope.

2. The Power Imbalance Between Client and Clinician

Informative Description:Clinicians hold institutional power: they diagnose, recommend treatment, and document behavior. This power can be weaponized unintentionally when transparency is lacking.

Key Characteristics:

• Observations documented without consent

• Assumptions written as clinical facts

• Lack of client input in treatment decisions

• Limited accountability

Impact:Clients internalize fear of being watched or judged, similar to the dynamics of stalking but framed as “clinical assessment.”

3. Boundary Violations Through Excessive Observation

Descriptive Analysis:Some settings blur professional boundaries, leading to excessive observation disguised as care.

Key Characteristics:

• Unnecessary monitoring

• Overchecking vitals, mood, or daily routines

• Staff discussing clients outside professional context

• Observing clients in nonclinical spaces (lobbies, cafeterias, hallways)

Impact:Clients feel surveilled in every environment, not just therapeutic ones.

III. LEADERSHIP AND INFORMANTS: POWER WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY

Section Introduction

Leadership structures and informal networks can create a culture of silent reporting. “Informants” may be staff, clients, or community members who share information upward. When used improperly, this system mirrors stalking—but under the guise of organizational function.

1. Informal Surveillance Networks

Analytical Description: Organizations often develop whisper networks where information flows unchecked.

Key Characteristics:

• Staff sharing internal observations casually

• Rumors treated as legitimate concerns

• Clients penalized for behavior they were unaware was observed

Impact: Creates an environment of paranoia and distrust, as individuals feel watched by unseen eyes.

2. Leadership as Enforcers of Behavioral Monitoring

Informative Description: Leaders may unintentionally encourage hyper-watching by prioritizing compliance and control.

Key Characteristics:

• Leaders requesting frequent updates on individuals

• Bias influencing who gets monitored

• No system to regulate informal reports

Impact: The target feels singled out, isolated, and overcontrolled.

3. The Use of “Concern Reporting” as a Tool of Control

Descriptive Analysis: Concerns may be submitted without proof, transparency, or accountability.

Key Characteristics:

• Anyone can file a report

• Reports used to justify surveillance

• Accumulated notes shape perception without client knowledge

Impact: The client’s life becomes a file of misinterpreted moments, resembling the dynamic of a stalker collecting data.

---

Watch this Video for more information on health surveillance and legalized stalking

---

DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON WOMEN, MINORITIES & TRAUMA SURVIVORS

Section Introduction

Systems rarely acknowledge how gender, race, culture, or trauma histories influence surveillance. Women and marginalized groups experience more scrutiny, more misinterpretation, and more punitive responses.

1. Gendered Surveillance

Analytical Description:Women often face behavioral judgment tied to stereotypes about femininity, modesty, or emotional expression.

Examples:

• Tone or assertiveness labeled as aggression

• Social interactions monitored more closely

• Dietary, relationship, or appearance choices policed

2. Racial and Cultural Misinterpretation

Informative Description:Cultural practices or communication styles may be misunderstood as symptoms or risk factors.

Examples:

• Cultural speech patterns viewed as instability

• Religious or spiritual practices pathologized

• Bias in determining “normal” behavior

3. Trauma Survivors Targeted Through Hypervigilance

Descriptive Analysis:Those with trauma histories are more likely to be labeled difficult, paranoid, or unstable when expressing valid fear.

Impact:Their lived experiences are dismissed, making institutional monitoring feel like a continuation of past harm.

V. PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT OF SYSTEM-BACKED SURVEILLANCE

Section Introduction

Even when legally sanctioned, excessive observation creates emotional, cognitive, and social distress similar to stalking victims. This section outlines how institutional scrutiny destabilizes mental well-being.

1. Internalized Hypervigilance

Impact:

• Constant fear of being watched

• Difficulty relaxing or concentrating

• Feeling unsafe in everyday environments

2. Breakdown of Trust in Systems

Impact:

• Avoidance of services

• Refusal to seek help

• Perception that institutions cause harm, not healing

3. Emotional Exhaustion and Identity Distortion

Impact:

• Questioning one’s own perception

• Feeling misjudged or dehumanized

• Developing stress, anxiety, or depressive symptoms

VI. PATHWAYS TOWARD REFORM, ADVOCACY, AND ETHICAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Section Introduction

This final section outlines how institutions can reduce harm, restore autonomy, and prevent systemic stalking-like behaviors. It shifts the focus toward solutions.

1. Establishing Transparent Practices

Solutions:

• Clear explanation of what is monitored

• Client involvement in documentation

• Open access to their notes and records

2. Trauma-Informed Training Across All Staff Levels

Solutions:

• Understanding cultural nuance

• Respecting autonomy

• Avoiding overinterpretation of behaviors

3. Eliminating Informal Surveillance Networks

Solutions:

• Prohibiting rumor-based communication

• Setting strict boundaries for staff discussions

• Requiring evidence for concern reports

4. Empowering Clients Through Rights and Advocacy

Solutions:

• Teaching clients their privacy rights

• Peer support systems

• Grievance processes that actually work

What Is Systematic Surveillance Without Cameras?

Systematic surveillance without cameras refers to organized, ongoing observation and reporting carried out through people instead of technology, often in ways that are unregulated, unethical, and disproportionately used against vulnerable populations.

It relies on:

• Informants

• Community insiders

• Service providers

• Authority figures

• Neighbors, staff, or peers

• Behavioral health workers or case managers

• Correctional contacts or probation systems

This creates a system where a person is watched, judged, and reported on without their knowledge—often without real evidence of wrongdoing.

How It Shows Up in Marginalized Communities

In areas that already face inequality, this system operates through:

1. “Sinister” Community Dynamics

People with status, connections, or hidden agendas monitor and spread information about targeted individuals.

2. Informal Neighborhood Surveillance

Neighbors or community members “keep tabs” on certain people, especially those labeled as mentally ill, unstable, or “different.”

3. Behavioral Monitoring by Service Systems

Mental health, social services, shelters, or outreach programs create internal cultures of:

• over-reporting

• labeling

• pathologizing normal behavior

• sharing client information without cause

4. Institutional “Concern Reporting”

Staff casually report people for minor actions, creating false flags and building a record of suspicion.

Why It Targets the Mentally Ill

People with mental health struggles—especially Black, Brown, Muslim, or marginalized women—are more likely to be interpreted as:

• “unstable”

• “aggressive”

• “unpredictable”

• “needing monitoring”

• “a risk”

This creates a culture where mentally ill individuals are over-watched, over-documented, and over-controlled, even when they pose no threat.

What Makes It “Systematic”?

Because the surveillance:

• is ongoing, not accidental

• involves multiple people or institutions

• follows a pattern

• creates paper trails (notes, reports, flagging)

• influences police, housing, benefits, or healthcare decisions

It becomes a system, not a coincidence.

What Makes It Harmful?

Without cameras, this type of surveillance becomes invisible and therefore more dangerous:

• No proof of who watched, followed, or reported

• No accountability

• No official record of misconduct

• Impossible to dispute rumors

• Creates psychological distress, paranoia, and fear

• Disproportionately impacts people with past trauma

It is a silent method of control, containment, and character assassination.

If you have specific questions or concerns, feel free to share!

Hope you found this insightful while grasping the key components!

Please contact me if you would like to chat in a peer counseling session, revolving around this post or another topic.

Mental health revival seeking to inspire a unique perception of mental health awareness