Jump to content

Talk:United States Federal Witness Protection Program

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Length of programme

[edit]

How long do programmes last for? Indefinitely? Till the end of the case? Or till the witness/relatives die? Wondered this after seeing a cameo by a certain character in episode six of season five of The Wire. --81.102.216.3 (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No printed or electronic sources to back this up, but according to my grandfather who was an FBI agent, once Witness Protection is granted, it's permanent; you retain your new identity and have 24 hour support from the US Marshals if you need it for the remainder of your life. Either that, or you may keep it until it's safe to revert back to your original identity, but this is very rare. Usually it's permanent. 72.28.178.20 (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

[edit]

It would be nice to see this article expanded, even for the sake of more thoroughly covering the US Witness Protection Program. I would like to hear more about the methodology used to hide those enrolled in the program, why people either choose to stay in the program or leave it, more detailed information on how the current program came to be, etc. Robert, 24 November 2007.

Limited Geographic Scope

[edit]

How does program of the United States Government, that hides witnesses of the US Justice system, need worldwide perspectives? It's like saying that an article on the US Navy is limited in scope because it doesn't discuss the Chinese navy and Royal Navy? --Wingsandsword 17:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there's no good reason for that tag to be there. I say we remove it. Jeff Silvers 11:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally not keen on the way a non-US person typing in "Witness Protection" would be redirected here, because they might want an article on what happens in their own country. Unforunatly that article doesn't exist yet. --Christhebull 13:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The UK Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 apparently makes some provisions for witness protection; I believe this is where this request may have come from - i.e. people would like to know about witness protection programs in other countries.
The other reason is this article doesn't explain at all the international impact of a US citizen in WITSEC. Can they never travel outside the US? Or do they get a fake passport? Wouldn't that be a serious breach in the eyes of the other country, this person with a fake official passport entering their country under a fake name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.199.156 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "fake" passport is a real one, with the new identity. Since the documents are issued by the official government, they are not fake. They document the new identity issued by the government and the protectee is free to travel internationally if they desire to.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

[edit]

"Around 17% of protected witnesses will commit another crime, compared to the less than the 40% of parolees who return to crime."

The first half of this sentence makes sense.67.169.63.116 09:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thouht this was ood too so Im going to go and amend this accordingly --PrincessBrat 16:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research an checking the artcile which it is sourced from (well done person who did that cos it enabled verification) the statement is exactly true. I will revert it back to how it was. --PrincessBrat 12:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Around 17% of protected witnesses will commit another crime". Why would WITNESSES commit ANOTHER crime? I don't undertsand this.

Many turned state's evidence in exchange for leniency Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is it makes the public believe that everybody that goes into this program was a criminal before, this is obviously false because there are many protected witnesses who were never in crime, so it should be edited.--President Elect 12:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently got into watching [In Plain Sight] and am curious about what percentage of witnesses are former criminals and how many got into the program without commiting a crime. Concerning the previous comment (which seems to violate quite a lot of wiki policies...) I wonder what kind of immunity from prosecution witnesses in the program have after they have testified and how long that lasts. I think those 2 facts would make good additions to the article. 90.146.64.94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Quite a few witnesses who were involved in organized crime had committed crimes in the past and a fair number of times, continue to commit crimes while under protection. In some cases, their protected status was revoked for multiple felonies.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious about such things as whether protected witnesses are somehow given new Social Security numbers and so forth. How are their earnings from their prior life taken into account for Social Security entitlements? Do they file their taxes using new names and SS numbers? A sentence in the linked "How it Works" article asserts that "Name changes are done by the court system just like any name change, but the records are sealed." Since name change is a state court matter, it is doubtful that the Federal Marshal's Service can mandate sealing of state court records. And such court proceedings frequently require notice by publication. How is this avoided? Another question involves employment. Other than for very menial jobs, one needs to complete an extensive application form, or submit a resume and references. Does the Witness Protection Program sanction the use of faked resumes and references? Those are a few questions I have.Terry Thorgaard (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WPP in Fiction

[edit]

Why the extensive lists of media that involve WPP? It isn't that notable, and the article is turning into a list of trivial mentions that have nothing to do with the article's subject (see WP:TRIVIA). If no one objects, I will remove these lists. --Scottie theNerd 08:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPP in the Theaters

[edit]

Joe Dirt

Hey, that's funny! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.151.200 (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suitability for the program

[edit]

It would be of interest to include information here on what kind of person is, or is not, considered suitable for witness protection.

Presumably, someone who is widely known in their profession would not be a suitable candidate, because they would be unlikely to be able to hide successfully under a new identity, and too many people would insist on investigating their mysterious disappearance. (Extreme example: movie/TV celebrities.)

Also, someone who has "too many" relatives or acquaintances, spread all over the map, might not be suitable for witness protection, because there may not be any feasible location into which the person could "disappear" without a real risk of randomly running into someone who knew them before they went into the program. Given the increasingly mobile nature of American society, this could be much more of an obstacle to effective witness protection than in past times.

And, in some cases, I can imagine someone might simply not be willing to abandon their identity and all their relatives and friends, even if failing to do so might put their life in danger. Can a potential witness (I'm talking here about someone who hasn't committed any crime, but is an innocent witness to someone else's crime) be legally forced into witness protection — such as by threatening them with contempt-of-court proceedings for refusing to testify — or by threatening to file endangerment charges against them for putting family members at risk by refusing to allow their entire family to disappear? Are there any cases of this kind that can be cited or described? Richwales (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

protected witnesses: criminal v innocent

[edit]

From article as of 28 May 2009: Around 17 percent of protected witnesses who have committed a crime will be caught committing another crime, compared to the almost 40 percent of parolees who return to crime.

What is the proportion of "protected witnesses who have committed a crime" versus "protected witnesses who have not committed a crime"? I realise that to be a witness of value to prosecution, very often it is someone who is involved in criminal activity or who associates with criminals, but one would think that some protected witnesses are innocent victims? Is this stat available? Naaman Brown (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal - John Thomas Ambrose

[edit]

Notable as first case of its type brought in the history of the program? --Haruth (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: John Thomas Ambrose should be merged, it's a stub, and should be merged, perhaps into its own section, but by itself it seems somewhat orphaned. petiatil »User »Contribs 20:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not enough about the subject himself for there to be a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Witness Protection Program itself is barely more than a stub itself and this article has the potential to grow later. KenBest (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support John Thomas Ambrose is simply way too small to be its own article.KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The information in the article on Ambrose belongs in this one. Since the creation of John Thomas Ambrose there have been no major content adding edits.Themself (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  checkY Merger complete. --DarkCrowCaw 17:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The title of this article needs to be changed. "Witness Protection Program" is a title that has been mistakenly attributed to the program by the entertainment industry. The official and only title of the program is the "Witness Security Program." While this title is mentioned as an "also known as" within the body of the article, this only adds to the error, as it suggests that the program is not only known by two official names, but that the incorrect name is the title to which it is mainly referred. Although it is hard to prove a negative, I would point out that on all official US Department of Justice and US Marshals Service literature, as well as their websites, it is referred to under the "Security" title only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trey25 (talkcontribs) 03:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio concerns

[edit]

Are works of the United States government not in the public domain? --superioridad (discusión) 07:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Federal Witness Protection Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Federal Witness Protection Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

more into needed!

[edit]

This article is disgraceful! It contains NO information about what the witness protection program does, other than it "protects witnesses."

I can't add this info since I don't know it, but if someone doesn't, articles like this make WP look like a micky-mouse job. VerdanaBold 14:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Examples (persons)

[edit]

It would be nice to list some persons protected (and officially known as that), for instance the assassin Michael Townley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Townley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.196.53 (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: ENWR 1510 Writing and Critical Inquiry

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2023 and 2 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kpetrosillo (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rge6eb.

— Assignment last updated by JanelleNDri (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide murder religion. Sex exploitation terrorized etc

[edit]

Asap 2600:1014:B1A1:7CFE:0:33:FF63:8301 (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]