When 'Witness Protection' Is Really a Misnomer
"Witness protection," eh? Perhaps it might be better called the "We'll help you hide out for a few months, and then you're on your own" program.
That's the feeling I had after listening to Scott Shafer's All Things Considered report on San Francisco's witness protection program. Witness protection is an idea that TV and movies have turned into a cultural touchstone. (For instance, it was one of the options bandied about when people were debating what might happen to Tony at the end of The Sopranos a couple of months ago.)
But in real life, only 14 states offer this kind of deal for potential witnesses. (The federal program covers all the states but only covers federal crimes, and it has problems of its own.) And as Shafer reported, "...the programs don't literally protect anyone. There's no round-the-clock surveillance, and no fancy safe house; witnesses are simply moved out of the place where the crime occurred into a safer location."
The San Francisco program lasts three months after a criminal is convicted and then "the witnesses are basically on their own." Efforts are being made to improve the program — California is doubling the funding available for witness protection next year to more than $6 million.
But I can see why people might be reluctant to talk if witness protection often isn't.
10:52 AM ET | 08-30-2007 | permalink
