Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

With witness intimidation on the rise, the need for states to adopt a formal witness protection program (WPP) has become increasingly important. However, only a handful of states have done so. Some states have tried to model their program after the Federal Witness Security (WITSEC) Program but have been unable to replicate it because of financial deficits. Whereas WITSEC has the U.S. Marshals at its disposal for safeguarding protected witnesses, most states must rely on local law enforcement for protection. Moreover, whereas WITSEC received an estimated $61.8 million in 1997 from the government, most states are struggling to find money to implement and/or maintain this costly endeavor. States lacking formalized programming may have some counties that have been able to implement small-scale WPPs. Unfortunately, these programs are not under guidelines set forth by the state. They are managed and under the discretion of local law enforcement. Therefore, neighboring counties may have entirely different policies and procedures for guarding protected witnesses, and some counties within the same state will lack policies and procedures entirely. Until there are formalized programs in place, many witnesses may be too afraid to cooperate with law enforcement. Consequently, many criminals have the opportunity to evade justice under our legal system.

The Importance of Having Statewide WPPS

Only witnesses involved in federal cases are eligible to apply to WITSEC. Under WITSEC, witnesses are relocated; receive entirely new identities; stay under the supervision of the U.S Marshals; and receive assistance with housing, medical care, job training, and employment. These federal witnesses are also provided with monthly stipends. However, most witnesses are not involved in federal cases. Therefore, they fall under the jurisdiction of the prosecuting state, and most states cannot afford to provide the same services offered to witnesses in WITSEC.

Many cases involving witness intimidation are gang- or drug-related, and witnesses are afraid to testify because they know that local law enforcement cannot guarantee their safety. Unlike WITSEC, where 97% of witnesses have prior criminal histories, most state witnesses are innocent community members who happened to witness or fall victim to a criminal act.

When witnesses are threatened, they may decide to remain quiet when questioned by authorities, they may decide not to report a crime, they may refuse to testify, or they may perjure themselves on the stand. Furthermore, the penalties for threatening witnesses are typically far less than the penalty for the crime of which the suspect is accused. A suspect has nothing to lose and everything to gain if he or she can prevent a witness from coming forward. Witness intimidation can also weaken the public's faith in the police's ability to protect them. This problem is found mostly in large cities with serious street-gang problems, but it is not limited to these areas. Threats may be verbal or physical and made against the witnesses themselves and/or their families. When witnesses refuse to cooperate, prosecutors may not have enough evidence to secure a conviction, and they may be forced to dismiss the case. In New York State, witness intimidation is a growing problem and believed to be responsible for the dismissal of one fourth of all prosecutions in Manhattan.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading