Assessing the Effectiveness of Organized Crime Control Strategies ...

Assessing the Effectiveness of Organized Crime Control Strategies:
A Review of the Literature
This review did not uncover any evaluation of any of these programs. Beare (1996:194) states
that the current version of the program is under-funded and lacks “the infrastructure of training,
support services, and policies needed to support the Canada-wide operation.” For example,
Canada lacks the facilities to house informers who are incarcerated, especially at the provincial
level and in the case of women.
The RCMP’s program costs over $3 million and protects 80-100 witnesses at any one time.
About half of these witnesses have provided testimony in relation to OC cases. As with the
American program, a number of lawsuits have been filed against the RCMP for allegedly failing
to provide adequate protection for witnesses and their families, and for failing to provide new
identities (Ha, 1995).
The United Kingdom, too, has no national witness protection program; however, an increasing
number of police forces have established specialized units to protect witnesses (Fyfe and McKay,
2000). Witness relocation tends to be an option for just those witnesses facing the highest level
of danger. An evaluation of the Strathclyde program in Scotland revealed that the average cost
per case was considerably lower than other British programs-$6,000 as opposed to $20,000-
$100,000. This difference was attributed to variations in the length of time witnesses spend in
temporary accommodations, variations in benefits, and the more expeditious processing of cases
in Scotland.
Police officers, prosecutors, and defence advocates tended to agree that such programs are
invaluable, especially in certain types of cases (e.g., drug-related), where the presence of forensic
evidence means that witness intimidation is one of the few avenues available to the accused and
co-defendants to weaken the prosecution’s case (Fyfe and McKay, 2000:289). Prosecutors noted
that, without such programs, witnesses had often chosen to accept the penalties of not testifying
rather than risk serious injury.
These professionals noted some concerns with these programs (Fyfe and McKay, 2000). One
concern was that some witnesses, wishing to be relocated, would falsely claim that they were
being threatened. Another concern was that relocation would not work, as protected witnesses
would eventually return to their home area. Defence counsel were apprehensive about the
prejudicial effect on the image of defendants of indicating in court that the witness had entered a
witness protection program.
Witnesses interviewed in the Strathclyde study reported facing such incidents as having their
house gas-bombed, having a shotgun to their head, being run over by a car, and receiving threats
to their children. While many were relieved to learn about the possibility of being relocated,
they were anxious about the impending loss of contact with family and friends. At this stage,
some witnesses decide against relocation, while others feel they have no option. Generally,
witnesses who were relocated felt more secure, but continued to experience anxieties and anger.
The protected witnesses who testified in court (some were not compelled to give evidence due to
changes of plea) had praise for their treatment. They were escorted to and from court and sat in
separate waiting rooms from the other attendees.
34 | Research and Statistics Division / Department of Justice Canada