• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Overcriminalized Bill of the Week: We Already Know Witness Tampering is Bad

    One of the three aspects of overcriminalization that we highlight in our weekly e-mail alerts is “Federalizing crime that properly belongs under state and local jurisdiction.”  This edition, the first in a series entitled “Overcriminalization Bill of the Week,” contains a textbook example of such a policy mistake.

    The State Witness Protection Act of 2012, S. 2127, sponsored by Senator Robert Casey (D-PA), would make it a federal offense to commit a crime against a witness in state and local judicial proceedings.  The enumerated crimes are “to kill, attempt to kill, use physical force or the threat of physical force against, harass, intimidate or attempt to intimidate, or offer anything of value to, another individual, with the intent to” improperly affect the witness’s testimony, or to retaliate against a witness for testifying.  The bill would reach interference in a state proceeding when an utterance that constitutes the offense (such as an oral threat) or an utterance in furtherance of the crime is “communicated or transported by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or any means or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce.”  The bill also would reach any person who has crossed state boundaries in the course or commission of the crime, as well as weapons that have crossed state lines that might be used.  A conviction under this proposed legislation would be punishable by up to the greater of (1) 20 years imprisonment and a fine under Title 18 of the U.S. Code or (2) the maximum term of imprisonment for any charged offense in the original criminal case.

    The bill does not explain what the federal interest is in these purely local cases.  One would be hard-pressed to find a reason to criticize the policies underlying statutes that outlaw witness tampering, but this legislation appears purposeless.  The bill takes a state witness tampering crime and makes it a federal offense if the offender used the mails, a phone, or the Internet.  Think about that:  The bill makes it a federal crime to commit a state crime.  Why?  Do the states not have their own witness tampering laws?  (Senator Casey’s Pennsylvaniadoes.)  Are the states not prosecuting witness tampering cases?  Even if that were the case, why would the federal government need to criminalize witness tampering in state courts?  This is an obvious example of overcriminalization through overfederalization.

    One problem with this state and federal overlap, as our Heritage scholars have noted before is that it may “blur the respective lines of federal and state authority, assert federal supremacy without providing sufficient federal resources, and thus undermine the efforts of state law enforcement.

    Congress might just as well pass a statute saying “Witness tampering is bad.”  This is faux crime policy: introducing a useless bill that gives the appearance of doing something, but will just leave criminal justice professionals scratching their heads trying to figure out just what that something is.

    The bill was proposed on February 17 and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Overcriminalized Bill of the Week: We Already Know Witness Tampering is Bad

    1. STEVEN says:

      Robert Casey a senator? This legislation is useless, redundant and is exactly the kind of thing that shows the IQ of a congressman is that of a fifth grader! It also shows the people that put him in office are as dumb as a box of rocks!
      The same ones, I might add, that put Obama in the white house!

    2. DougRagan says:

      Legislation for legislation's sake. Nothing more.

    3. Bobbie says:

      useless is too nice! why does government get to touch what doesn't have reason to be? this is what they're spending our money on. converting anti American sentiment, taking credit where they aren't but can. changing something as simple as one word destroys it. what we also know is this elected President and his moves shows a definite disliking to us and what is truth and that we as Americans, with much more productive ideas are hindered without a cause to be but by the President's intentional, unconstitutional obstructions…

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.