![]() ![]() Participants may refuse protection, but should be required to report at specified intervals to governmental authorities. This plan endeavours at guaranteeing that witnesses get fitting and satisfactory security. Finally, regardless of a witness' desire to leave the WPP, the government should be authorized to monitor anyone who has ever entered the WPP. It is acknowledged today that Witness Identity Protection is fundamental on account of all genuine offenses wherein there is a threat to witnesses and it isn’t restricted to instances of psychological warfare or sexual offenses. It also suggests that a special committee be formed to scrutinize the decisions of those who are involved in the selection, processing, treatment, and monitoring of WPP participants. This paper recommends that further research be devoted to providing a better assessment of the costs and benefits of the WPP without compromising the necessary secrecy and sensitivity of the WPP. The Witness Security Reform Act of 1984 sought to address this problem by stipulating that witness "protection is prohibited where the need for a person's testimony is outweighed by the risk of danger to the public." Even with all the provisions incorporated within the Witness Security Reform Act of 1984, however, Sammy the Bull Gravano, who recently testified under Federal protection at the trial of reputed mob boss Vincent Gigante, was shielded from civil process servers by the presiding judge. ![]() This has occasioned court cases being brought by persons victimized by some in the WPP such action is brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. This presents another problem, that is, witnesses with criminal backgrounds continuing to commit crimes under the protection of the WPP. ![]() The significance of this infringement on rights, however, is diminished by the fact that almost all protected witnesses have serious criminal records. Some criticisms of the program include the charge that for those in the program the fundamental rights of privacy and personal autonomy, freedom of association, freedom of travel, and liberty are abrogated as a result of entrance into the WPP. It provided for the health, safety, and welfare of witnesses (and their families) who offered valuable testimony in organized crime proceedings. The State’s lethargy in this matter cannot be regarded as innocent.With witness protection in mind, the WPP was established as part of Title V of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. India’s unequal society and the links of many politicians with criminals demand investment in, and trained manpower for, witness protection. The process of justice should include the assessment of threat perception to witnesses and methods of protection, such as change of name and address if necessary, and a determination of the period of protection. Witnesses are supposed to be the eyes and ears of the justice system with nothing to protect them from fear of death, loss or injury, numerous criminal cases in Indian courts end in acquittals because witnesses turn hostile. Had the State wished to correct this imbalance of power and ensure justice, a witness protection programme would not have been lacking. ![]() A Human Rights Watch report of 2017 confirms this in the case of sexual crimes. Threats to life and property, and imprisonment of witnesses on some charge or other, are easiest when the criminals come from dominant castes or sections of society and the victims are marginalized or underprivileged. A law against criminal intimidation of witnesses was introduced in 2006: it has not stopped murders, abductions and threats to witnesses, as in the Asaram case - they led to the formulation of the witness protection scheme in 2018 - or in the 2017 Unnao rape case, or the murder of the rape survivor of 2019, when she was going for a hearing. The Citizens for Justice and Peace, a non-governmental organization fighting for witness protection, has filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court asking, among other things, that witnesses in the Hathras case be given protection by Central paramilitary forces and the trial be moved to Delhi. The role of the State is blatant here, but the State’s passivity is evident in the fact that no system of witness protection is operative although a scheme for it was evolved in 2018 - astonishingly late, especially compared to many other countries. In that case, however, the family complained of pressure from the district magistrate, while a senior police officer claimed that there was no rape. The intimidation of witnesses or survivors of a crime is not new in India it did not begin with the alleged gang rape and death of the Dalit girl in Hathras. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |