Anti-gang bill provides $1.5 million for witness protection

Serghino René

Within two years, there have been approximately 800 shootings. Anti-crime activists say people are afraid to talk and for reasons quite understood. Until last week, Massachusetts didn’t have a statewide process to protect witnesses.

Last week, Governor Mitt Romney signed the anti-gang bill into law, providing $1.5 million for the armed protection, relocating and paying of living expenses to witnesses for the next two years.

“A big part of our community has been subjected to fear and terror,” said state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, a sponsor of the bill. “This funding is expected to provide resources that were once non-existent.”

Whether witnesses were directly threatened or had implied threats, many of them lived within the same neighborhood as the “defendant” said David Procopio, spokesperson for Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley. Out of fear, witnesses prefer to stay quiet because they know only so much can be done to protect them. This is mainly seen with people in the lower income bracket. They don’t have the financial resources to just up and leave.

“In the past, there was no pool of money dedicated to witness relocation,” said Procopio. “We had to pull money from our already strained budget and often times part of our expense was shared with the Boston Police Department. Now this is a new pool of money.”

“Most people who have misfortune in Boston don’t keep emergency money readily on hand to move on an overnight notice,” said Wilkerson.

The original Anti-Gang Bill was given $750,000 for the statewide witness protection program, but Senator Dianne Wilkerson went before the House and proposed that the amount be raised to $2 million.

‘’Seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars is just not enough money,” said Wilkerson in a recent Boston Globe article. ‘’We have more than $750,000 in witnesses who need to be protected just in Boston.”

Wilkerson, as well as colleagues from New Bedford, Lynn, Brockton, Springfield, South Boston and Brighton sought to increase the funding and succeeded in doing so, even after the House agreed to give the program $1.5 million. They also intended to add important language that would create a liaison between the state and the United States Marshal’s federal program — making it easier to prove perjury and allowing harsher penalties for witness intimidation.

“I thought we could use $2 million, but it is about compromise — that is the name of the game,” said Wilkerson. “...I am positive that a well-run program will make progress in our fight to reduce crime in our communities.”

A number of issues stalled the bill from reaching a concluding stage; one question being how much would the witness protection program cost? Massachusetts took a helpful look at a number of witness protection programs in various states. Although their programs cost less than $2 million, they had the resources such as money for police details and housing for witness. Wilkerson made it a point to mention that this program was starting from scratch, therefore making the proposed increase crucial, if not necessary.

“I would have liked to see this program sooner, but it was more important that we get it right,” said Wilkerson. “How can we keep chastising and blaming our law enforcement for doing a poor job if there are no resources to help them solve crimes?”

In addition, the House wanted to fund the program through the end of this fiscal year, June 30, and then include it in next year’s budget. Wilkerson maintained it was best to include enough money for the year, rather than to have the same funding battle all over again later this spring. She wanted to get as much money as possible while there was a consensus on the issue rather than risk getting it overlooked in the next budget cycle.

So what does this mean for Massachusetts? Wilkerson says that this is a big step and it tells the “citizens of the Commonwealth that we are serious about reducing crime.”