For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222

WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM.
  Term Paper ID:29094 		Get This Paper Free! or
Essay Subject:
Purpose of the Witness Security Program (WSP).... More...
8 Pages / 1800 Words
5 sources, 8 Citations, APA Format
$32.00

More Papers on This Topic


Paper Abstract:
Purpose of the Witness Security Program (WSP). Its establishment under the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Cost of providing witness services. Lack of Congressional oversight. How the program works. Safety and security issues. Program's flaws. Its future. Stress of relocation on women and men.

Paper Introduction:
Witness Protection Program Overview The Witness Protection Program (WPP), more properly referred to as the Witness Security Program (WSP), is a United States program that was established under Public Law 91-452, more commonly known as the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. The purpose of the program is to provide a security blanket for witnesses in serious criminal cases whose lives would be in danger if they testified against the accused criminals. The WSP is, naturally, extremely security conscious, so much so that there is little Congressional oversight to the program, although there are strict rules concerning future contact by the witness with family or friends once in the WSP (Barnes, 2000). According to the most reliable source, the Office of the Inspector General,

Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.


. Earley and Shur (2 2) point out that the recordsare hard to substantiate but, In the early 197 s, it was estimated that between 25 and 5 witnesses would be protected each year at a cost of less than $1 million. The solution to ensuring that a witness does nottestify against a criminal is for the criminal to neutralize the witness'spower. Drury, 1994, writing about women connected to the mob has thispenetrating insight which can also be extended to apply to women in theprogram. The use of thequalifiers "approximaately" or "about" in an official audit of costs isunusual, but typical for the WSP. Yes, there are the diamonds and limos, the glitter and glamour. (1994, Feb. But in return, every Mafia mistress makes her own Faustian deal with the underworld. This is in light of the fact that there is not even access toacademicians and sociologists to study the impact of the program. He points out that a 1983 audit of the Witness SecurityProgram concluded that protected witnesses have been involved in numerous crimes after they were freed. At the time, the Justice Department insisted the continued and longstanding involvement from witnesses previously enrolled in the program caused costs to soar (Earley & Shur, 2 2, 49). Shur is of the opinion that the program is out of control and haslost its focus. He would receive all of therewards when he testified. Sometime in 1989, it was decided that the expenses for the programshould become "black budget items." Also in 1989, the witnesses were nolonger kept in prisons but in out of the way locations such as mountaincabins or beach houses that could be easily guarded. Valachi was facingthe death penalty for 17 murders, one of which was the guard at the UnitedStates Federal Penitentiary in Atlanta. . The current rate of admission into the WSPis about 15 witnesses per year" (USDOJ, Online). The government lied. Congress is told that there are about6, people in the program and the budget is about $1 million. Thisprogram is controlled and supervised by the United States Marshals Service. The firstsection is charged with protecting incarcerated prisoners and thisresponsibility falls to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. After several months of this, he tried to commit suicide, an act thatled the United States Government experimenting with a new strategy ofkeeping its promises. According to the most reliable source, the Office of the InspectorGeneral, the average cost of providing services to an individual witness inthe WSP for one year is "approximately $45, for an individual and$112, for a family of four. This isnot surprising given the female's typically greater desire to find solaceand comfort with close friends and family; or given the fact that women arevictims of crime more often than men. Because of this threat, the desire to speak up and testify against lawbreakers was always a primary hindrance to the administration of justice.A great part of this problem was connected with the challenge of gettingwitnesses to testify against members of organized crime. As he writes in his book, ...as high-ranking mob figures came into the program, it became apparent that keeping his witnesses alive in the face of death threats involved more than eradicating old identities and creating new ones. A more effective method, and one which is usedmost often, is to kill the witness. Evaluation Little had been written on this topic until the Earley and Shur work,and after reading it, this writer's opinion of the program underwent somechanges. The more familiar section of the program protects civilian witnessesthat require long-term and permanent relocation with new identities,housing, living expenses, employment assistance, and other services. She can go anywhere, get anything, spend everything--but she can never buy back her soul (Drury, 1994, 194). One of the reasons that Congress wants some oversight rights with theprogram is that its effectiveness is being questioned. . The program has its flaws, and many of them are pointed out in Shurand Earley's book. It seems that the government prosecutors, besides pleading a lack of funds, can't figure out which witnesses really need protection (threats being difficult to document: "Excuse me, Mr. Big Vinny, but would you be so kind as to put that in writing?")(Hazlett, 1997, 66). Auditors identified seven witnesses who have been convicted of murder, one who is currently charged with murder, and indications that four others were charged with murders. There is a special unit within the DOJ's Criminal Division calledthe Office of Enforcement Operations (OEO) that has as its primaryresponsibility overlooking the program and establishing criteria for entry. How it Began The paradox of the American judicial system is that the accused,since he or she is able to face his or her accuser, is also able to seeexactly who the accuser is, and what kind of testimony this person iscapable of delivering. The government had promised him a new life,complete safety, a new identity and complete security. (1997, March 1), Stayin' alive: health, wealth, and wiseguys, Reason, 66 Perhaps the barest essential governmental function should be keeping alive our fellow citizens who come forth to prosecute violent criminals. The program protects both men and women, and the stress of therelocation and the new identity affects women much more than men. You can never be free: Herein lies the dark, even deadly, cornerstone of a goumada's life. .efforts to strengthen the country's witness protection program have gone nowhere. 1), Going steady with the mob: (some women do!),Cosmopolitan, 194 Earley, P.; Shur, G. The WSP is,naturally, extremely security conscious, so much so that there is littleCongressional oversight to the program, although there are strict rulesconcerning future contact by the witness with family or friends once in theWSP (Barnes, 2 ). Other serious crimes committed by witnesses include arson, robbery and assorted drug violations (Earley & Shur, 2 2, 55). The typical way that this is attempted is for the defense counselto discredit the witness. (2 2), Witsec: Inside the Federal WitnessProtection Program, New York: Bantam Books Hazlett, T.W. Mr. Shur, in the 196 s, was an attorney in the DOJ's OrganizedCrime and Racketeering Section, and he was the one who started the programand was instrumental in getting Valachi to come forward and testify andreveal the inside workings of the Mafia. Until a statistical analysis of the programis undertaken (which will probably never happen) there is no real way todetermine its efficiency. Instead of freedom, hewas kept in solitary confinement. The stress of the program leads tohigher rates of divorce, although Earley and Shur are quick to point outthat there is no real way to understand the emotional disruption theprogram has. References Barnes, E. From this simple and uneventful beginning, theprogram began to grow. There are two distinct operational units of the program. The STPP is designed to provide a more limited range of services than those provided by the WSP (Earley & Shur, 2 2, 82).This program is unique and different in that it does not give the witnessesa new identity, a new address, or to sever all his or her ties to thefamily. By 1982, when the program took in 324 new witnesses, the total budget was $28.4 million. In 1964, Joseph Valachi, a confirmed member of the Mafia, agreed totestify against the mob. Admission to this segment of the WSP requires the witness to make a complete break from their previous life and to demonstrate traits that indicate that they possess potential for successful integration into the program (Earley and Shur, 2 2, 122).In 1992, yet another modification was made to the program when the Short-Term Protection Program (STPP) was developed in 1992 to assist intimidated witnesses specifically involved in gang-related cases being prosecuted by the USAO in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The purpose of the program is to provide asecurity blanket for witnesses in serious criminal cases whose lives wouldbe in danger if they testified against the accused criminals. Witness Protection Program Overview The Witness Protection Program (WPP), more properly referred to as theWitness Security Program (WSP), is a United States program that wasestablished under Public Law 91-452, more commonly known as the OrganizedCrime Control Act of 197 . (2 , June 5), Happiness Is...A Pill?/Crime: Ecstasy inArizona: A Cop and Bull, Time, 72+ Department of Justice, online athttp://www.usdoj.gov/oig/i2 1 2/app2.htm Drury, R. One outspokencritic, who is also editor of Reason Magazine said, In one sensational case in Los Angeles two years ago, both a witness and the mother of a witness were gunned down prior to a murder trial. The STPP operates under the same legal authority as the WSP and is administered by the USMS with oversight by the OEO. Outlook for the Future As Shur and Earley point out, the Witness Protection Program hasbecome a part of the justice myth, and there is the perception that it is avaluable crime fighting tool. This paper will consider several aspects of the WSP, including how theprogram began, how the program operates, how safe and secure the program is- especially in regards to female witnesses, and what the future outlookfor the program could be. Earley and Shur explain that this part of the protection program is designed to address cases where the threat to the witness is not confined to geographic boundaries or time. Yet. This inspired a stepped-up effort by the district attorney to protect his people - an altogether logical reaction. However, the fact that the program is secret,and no one knows who is in it, or where they are, or how much it costs, andhow long the witnesses will be protected, it is almost guaranteed a longlife. And in fact, many of the program's successes arealluded to, and we can assume that Shur, since he ran the program for 25years, speaks with a reasonable authority. It also meant cutting off families from their pasts and giving new identities to wives and children, as well as to mob girlfriends and mistresses (Earley & Shur, 2 2, 81). If he sees a future for theprogram, it seems silly to quarrel. By 1974, the government spent $3.1 million on 647 people admitted to the program that year. Instead of taking care of his family, hewas paid $15 a day. How the Program Operates The Department of Justice explains that the first ruling in 1974(Public Law 91-452) was amended by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of1984.

If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:

Search for:

or

We can write a Custom Essay just for you.


Browse Essays by Subject