I'm with you that it isn't perfect. I also don't assume malicious intent from you.

But (probably depending a lot on location) here nothing is done to protect victims. I work for free in a shelter where abused people end up, and the impotence they face is maddening. Unless your stalker viciously attacks or even kills you, nothing can and will be done.

Sure, you're right, if the accused stalker is no stalker at all, every system fails. But that applies to everything in the justice-system. We can never ever be 100% sure. Countless people were executed worldwide just to later learn they were innocent.

BUT I would bet that the amount of false-positives is much smaller than the amount of true positives. So maybe 50 victims is helped, 1 innocent non-stalker pays a hefty price. Numbers pulled outta my arse, but provably not too far off.

Question is, better a not perfect system or none at all? Better to protect 2 victims or protect 1 innocent? Ideally both, but also near impossible.

It is also a very thin veil here. A stalker, by definition, hasn't done anything really solid criminal YET. But the victim is in real danger. Where to draw the line and how to proove being followed (or not following someone)?