- Email: [email protected]
Witness involvement in the criminal justice system and intention to cooperate in future prosecutions
Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 11, pp. 143-152 (1983) Pergamon Press, Printed in U.S.A.
0047-2352/83/020143-10503.00/0 Copyright © 1983 Pergamon Press Ltd.
W I T N E S S I N V O L V E M E N T IN THE C R I M I N A L JUSTICE S Y S T E M A N D I N T E N T I O N TO C O O P E R A T E IN F U T U R E PROSECUTIONS
LEE NORTON
Ecosometrics Inc. 4715 Cordell Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814
ABSTRACT This study examined whether systems-related problems or relationships with criminal justice personnel were the more important factors associated with witness intention to cooperate in future prosecutions. Using correlation and regression analysis procedures it was determined that factors related to the responsiveness o f criminal justice system personnel were significantly greater predictors than systemrelated factors o f an intention to cooperate in the future. It was concluded that the responsiveness o f personnel to a witness is a very important factor in the witness's formation o f attitudes toward the criminal justice system and his or her participation in that system, and that the personnel in a prosecutor's office who interact with witnesses should be aware o f the role they play in influencing these attitudes.
Criminal justice agencies are dependent upon victims of crime and witnesses to such events for further information regarding criminal behavior. Once witnesses are identified and known to police, the question of their cooperation in the prosecution of the case is critically important and is regarded as a problem by most prosecuting attorneys in urban jurisdictions (Cannavale, 1976). A survey of assistant district attorneys revealed that 80 percent of the prosecutors considered the problem of witness noncooperation as either serious or very serious (National District Attorneys Association, 1975). A 1972 study in the Washington, D.C. prosecutor's office showed that after the
victim had decided to report the crime but before the problem o f continuances and delay had begun to operate, many crime cases were lost because witnesses did not want to cooperate. Of 4,188 cases of murder, rape, robbery, burglary, and serious assault between strangers, 47 percent were dropped at the prosecutor's initial screening because witnesses were uncooperative (McDonald, 1976). A study by Milwaukee's prosecutor found that of 240 witnesses surveyed, almost 40 percent indicated that they would be less cooperative in the future (Bloom, 1974). There are two major factors that are believed to be associated with the witness's
143
144
LEE NORTON
decision to cooperate in a prosecution. Many criminologists believe that attitudes such as lack of trust and confidence in police, prosecutors, and judges are very important in the witness's decision not to become involved in the criminal justice process. Cannavale (1976) noted an initial predisposition (not necessarily related to prior contact with criminal justice agencies) against volunteering help. "This type of predisposition," he stated, "includes prejudices against, and attitudes toward, personnel and agencies of the criminal justice system" (Cannavale, 1976: 9). Biderman (1967), Ennis (1967), and Reiss (1967) found negative attitudes held by victims concerning the ability of the legal system to carry out justice to be the most important factor in the decision not to become involved in the criminal justice process. A second factor that has been mentioned as a cause of witness noncooperation is witnesses encountering problems associated with their involvement in the criminal justice system. Some of these problems include trial delay, loss of income, and inappropriate accommodations in getting to, or waiting in, the court building. Cannavale (1976: 9) noted that, "Involvement in, or the operation of, the criminal justice system presents witnesses with so many major inconveniences and problems that, all too frequently, even initially cooperative witnesses wish they had never stepped forward and vow never to do so again." The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1973) observed that victims, witnesses, defendants, and jurors all experience delay, inconvenience, and confusion within our criminal justice system. Ash (1972) noted that the court system favors insider interests over outsider interests, and thus, the majority of inconveniences affect witnesses rather than judges and attorneys. Victim survey research projects conducted in Alameda County, California, and New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1974 to 1975 showed that the victims of crime and the witnesses to crime are themselves victims of an inadequate, indifferent criminal justice system (Lynch, 1976).
Several researchers have studied the response of criminal justice personnel to the needs of witnesses involved in the system and the effect that this has on the witness's attitudes toward the system and its personnel. In a study of 49 victims of violent crime in California who had collected compensation money, 71 percent expressed a desire for personal contact and help from someone in the system, indicating that they just wanted someone to talk to, or someone to help them sort out their problems and help them get back on their feet (Fogelman, 1971). Many of these victims indicated that the money did not compensate their need for personal contact and assistance from someone in the system. In a study of 54 fraud victims in Maryland, Johnson et al. (1978) found that esteem for the prosecutor's office and its personnel was significantly higher among those victims who had a more extensive contact with the investigator (fraud unit caseworker) and among victims who had a more positive perception of the amount of concern shown for them by the investigator. In addition, Hall (1975) found that a more positive appraisal of the prosecutor's office by victims was associated with a greater intention on their part to cooperate in the prosecution of criminal cases. There would appear to be some question as to whether system factors are themselves more important in the attitudes that witnesses develop toward the system and its personnel, or whether the persons working in the criminal justice system and the influence they have upon the witnesses through their involvement with them is more important in the development of these attitudes. This study was designed to examine that question. The study looks at a group of prosecution witnesses in felony cases and assesses the relationships between their system-related problems, their attitudes toward the personnel of the prosecutor's office with which they had contact, and their intention to cooperate in the future should they again be victims or witnesses in a criminal incident.
Witness Involvement in the CJ System and Intention to Cooperate in Future Prosecutions METHODS D a t a for the study were generated from 100 felony case witnesses (including 73 victim/witnesses) who had assisted the Prince G e o r g e ' s County (Maryland) State's A t t o r n e y ' s Office (SAO) in prosecuting the cases in which they were involved. The witnesses were all involved in separate cases which had been processed through the Prince G e o r g e ' s County criminal justice system in 1978. The sample did not include any professional witnesses (e.g., undercover police officers or informants). Assistance was provided to these witnesses by the Victim/Witness Assistance Unit within the S A O . This unit was set up to facilitate the prosecution of felony cases by providing case information (e.g., the name of the prosecuting attorney and court dates) to witnesses and helping to solve any problems they might encounter due to their involvement in the system. The sample for this study was drawn from prosecution witnesses who had been involved in felony cases with an indictment date between D e c e m b e r 21, 1977 and May 10, 1978 (approximately four and a half months). O v e r this four and a half month period 421 felony cases were processed through the Prince G e o r g e ' s County SAO. Two hundred twenty-one of the case files were unavailable to the researchers because they were being used by the SAO. Twentyeight additional cases were not used because they were cases in which only expert witnesses participated (drug cases using only police witnesses, for example). For the remaining 172 cases, an attempt was m a d e to contact the most important witnesses. First, an attempt was made to contact any victims within the 172 cases. If a victim on a case was interviewed, then that case was set aside because it was decided not to interview more than one witness on any case. This process netted 73 victim interviews. An attempt was then made to contact eyewitnesses and material witnesses using the same process, and the remaining 27 interviews came from these groups of witnesses. J
145
Each witness was interviewed by telephone in March 1979 concerning his or her experience as a prosecution witness. The interview included questions designed to elicit information on all facets of the case process (from the criminal incident itself to the final disposition in the case) from the responding witnesses. 2 Additional information on the witnesses and the cases in which they were involved was collected from records in the Prince George's County SAO. Eighteen of the 100 witnesses were involved in murder, rape, or assault cases (crimes against persons). Thirty-three of the witnesses were involved in robbery cases. The greatest number of respondents (45) were involved in burglary, larceny, housebreaking, or storehouse-breaking cases (property crimes). The remaining four witnesses in the sample were involved in forgery, embezzlement, or false pretenses cases (white-collar crimes). Seventy-two of the 100 witnesses were complete strangers to the defendant, 15 were friends of the defendant, and 7 were relatives of the defendant in their case. Of the sampled persons, 55 percent were male and 63 percent were white. Forty-five percent of the respondents were 29 years of age or younger, 39 percent were between 30 and 49, and 16 percent were 50 years of age or older. Twenty of the 100 witnesses had had a previous involvement as a prosecution witness in Prince George's County, and 13 respondents were already involved as prosecution witnesses on another case in Prince George's County.
INSTRUMENTATION Factor analysis procedures were used to develop a dependent measure of future cooperation and two attitude m e a s u r e s - witness satisfaction with the provision of SAO assistance and witness perception of treatment by SAO personnel. The future cooperation factor consisted of six items related to the witness's possible participation as a prosecution witness in a future case
146
LEE NORTON
and the witness's e n c o u r a g e m e n t of others to cooperate. Items dealing with the witness's cooperation in the future included the likelihood that he or she would cooperate as a witness in general, and specifically as an eyewitness and as a material witness. Items related to the witness's encouragement of others included whether he had encouraged others to cooperate should they be involved in an incident, how likely he was to encourage s o m e o n e he knew to be involved in an incident to cooperate, and how worthwhile he thought it was to encourage others to cooperate. 3 Witness satisfaction with assistance provided by the S A O was formed by five items measuring satisfaction in general, and specifically the extent to which the witness felt that S A O assistance was helpful and effective in dealing with his or her problems. ~ Witness perception of treatment by S A O personnel was measured by three items related to the d e m e a n o r of personnel in their interactions with witnesses. These items included a lack of feeling on the part of personnel, the amount of concern shown by personnel for the witness's situation, and whether personnel spent enough time with the witness. 5 T h e analysis included nine system factors related to the processing of the case, including the final outcome. There were three possible outcomes of a c a s e - - a nolle prosequi (a decision not to prosecute), a finding of innocence or acquittal, or a verdict of guilty (either pied or found). Each witness was also questioned as to whether or not he or she had to take time off from work because of involvement in the case, and if so how much time, and whether or not any of his or her property was held for identification purposes at a trial. The length of the case from the indictment of the defendant(s) to the final disposition in the case was measured in days and collapsed into three categories--4-7 months, 8-12 months, or over one year. W h e t h e r or not the case went to trial and whether or not the case was plea bargained were also included as system-related factors in this analysis. Witnesses who were in-
volved in cases that went to trial were asked if there were any delays or continuances of the trial and if court sessions started on time. Three demographic characteristics of the sample population, gender, race, and age, were included in the analysis to check for any significant differences between various subgroups of the sample in future cooperation and witness attitudes toward the SAO.
FINDINGS In order to understand better later analysis findings, some brief descriptive data on the variables under study are presented. Twenty-seven percent of the witnesses reported a very strong intention to cooperate in future prosecutions, with another 30 percent reporting a moderately strong intention to cooperate. Twenty-two percent of the sampled persons indicated a moderate intention to cooperate, with 11 and 9 percent respectively indicating a moderately low or very low intention to cooperate in future prosecutions. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents reported a very high level of satisfaction with SAO assistance, with another 31 reporting a moderately high level of satisfaction. Twenty-five percent of the sampled individuals indicated a moderate level of satisfaction, with I0 and 7 percent respectively indicating a moderately low or very low level of satisfaction with SAO assistance. Twenty-seven percent of the witnesses reported a very positive perception of treatment by SAO personnel, with another 30 percent reporting a moderately positive perception. Thirty-seven percent of the respondents indicated a moderately negative perception, with only 6 percent indicating a very negative perception of treatment by SAO personnel. Ninety percent of the cases ended in a verdict of guilty. Six percent ended in acquittal or a verdict of innocence, with 4 percent of the cases ending in a decision by the S A O not to prosecute. Fifty-nine percent of the witnesses had to take time off from work be-
Witness Involvement in the CJ System and Intention to Cooperate in Future Prosecutions cause of their participation in the case. Of the persons who had to take time off from work, 49 percent took less than one day, 29 percent took from one to three days, while 22 percent missed over three days of work. Three-fifths (60 percent) of the persons who had to take time off from work received no financial compensation for the time they missed. Twenty-nine percent of the witnesses had their property held for identification purposes in court. Forty-nine percent of the witnesses were involved in cases lasting from 4 to 7 months, 35 percent in cases lasting from 8 to 12 months, and 16 percent in cases lasting over a year. Sixty-seven percent of the witnesses were involved in cases that went to trial, while 23 percent were involved in cases that were plea bargained. Of those witnesses involved in cases that went to trial, 52 percent said that there were delays or continuances of the trial, and 32 percent said that court sessions did not start on time. The relationships between all of the variables under study were examined through correlation analysis (see Table 1). Relationships of specific importance to this study included those between the dependent measure (future cooperation) and all of the independent variables (attitude, system, and demographic) as well as the relationships between the attitude factors, and between the attitude factors and the other independent variables (system and demographic). Regression analysis procedures were performed to explain further the nature of specific relationships between the dependent and independent variables. Results of the correlation analysis showed that both attitude factors (witness satisfaction with SAO assistance and witness perception of treatment by SAO personnel) were significantly associated with future cooperation. The association between witness satisfaction with the provision of SAO assistance and future cooperation indicates that witnesses who were more satisfied with SAO assistance reported a greater intention to cooperate in the future than witnesses who were less satisfied. The correlation between witness perception of treatment by
147
SAO personnel and future cooperation indicates that witnesses with a more positive perception of treatment had a stronger intention to cooperate in the future than witnesses with a less positive perception of treatment. Only one system factor--the length of the case--was significantly associated with future cooperation. Witnesses involved in longer cases reported a lesser intention to cooperate in the future than did witnesses involved in shorter cases. Among the demographic variables, gender and race were both significantly associated with future cooperation. Males and whites indicated a greater intention to cooperate in the future than did females and blacks, respectively. Upon examining the relationship between the attitude factors, it was found that witnesses with a more positive perception of treatment by SAO personnel reported an overwhelmingly higher level of satisfaction with the provision of SAO assistance than did witnesses with a less positive perception of SAO treatment. In looking at the association between the system and attitude factors it was found that witnesses involved in longer cases reported significantly less satisfaction with the provision of SAO assistance and a more negative perception of treatment by SAO personnel than did witnesses involved in shorter cases. Finally, an examination of the relationships between the demographic and attitude factors showed that whites and males reported significantly greater satisfaction with SAO assistance than did blacks and females, respectively. Because this analysis was concerned with the relative importance of the contribution of treatment by criminal justice personnel and the impact of the system on the intention to cooperate in the future, regression analysis was performed to examine these relationships further. The first regression analysis included future cooperation as the dependent measure, with witness satisfaction with SAO assistance and the length of the case as the independent measures. The results of this analysis showed that satisfaction with the provision of SAO assistance
148
LEE NORTON TABLE 1
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FUTURE COOPERATION, ATTITUDE, SYSTEM, AND DEMOGRAPttlC FACTORS
Satisfaction with SAO Assistance
Future Cooperation Independent Variables
Simple r
Satisfaction with S A O Assistance T r e a t m e n t by S A O Personnel O u t c o m e of the Case Time Off from W o r k H o w Much Time Off Property Held for ID Length of the Case Case W e n t to Trial Delays or Continuances Court Sessions on Time Case Was Plea Bargained Race of Witness G e n d e r of Witness Age of Witness
p Level
.46 .42 .10 -.03 -.09 -.06 -.25 - . 16 .11 -.06 .13 .17 -.20 .07
Simple
r
Treatment by SAO Personnel
p Level
Simple r
p Level
.00l NS NS NS
-.16 .03 .05
-NS NS NS NS
.001 .001 NS* NS NS NS •(1tl8 NS NS NS NS .(154 .023 NS
.64 .12 - . 15 - . 11 • 10
NS
- . 18,
.043
-.(19
NS
.04
-.25 . 10
.03
NS
.14 • 16 • 19 -.22
NS NS .035 .016
.14 -.12
.04
NS
.01
-
.07 -.01 .00
.014 NS NS
NS NS NS NS NS
*NS - nonsignificant correlation was the m o r e important predictor of future cooperation (see Table 2). The second regression analysis was perf o r m e d to assess the relative contribution of t r e a t m e n t by criminal justice personnel and system involvement to witness satisfaction with S A O assistance. This regression analysis included witness satisfaction with S A O assistance as the dependent measure, with witness perception of treatment by S A O personnel and the length of the case as the independent variables. The results of this analysis showed that the witness's perception of t r e a t m e n t by S A O personnel was the m o r e important predictor of witness satisfaction with S A O assistance (see Table 3). DISCUSSION This study has been directed mainly toward an understanding of the important
factors related to witness cooperation in felony prosecutions• It should be pointed out that witness cooperation in a prosecution is different from cooperation with the police (i.e., reporting a criminal incident to the police and providing them with the necessary information to pursue the case). A person who is contemplating a decision as to whether or not to cooperate in a felony prosecution has already passed the hurdle of reporting the crime of which he or she was a victim or witness. The decision as to whether to cooperate or not is likely to be based on attitudes toward the criminal justice system and its personnel, and whether he or she feels that participation will be worth the effort. In other words, given that he or she is going to have to take time off from work and will probably have to testify in court (which will likely mean some amount of financial loss as well as
Witness Involvement in the CJ System and Intention to Cooperate in Future Prosecutions
149
TABLE 2 REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF FUTURE COOPERATION WITH SATISFACTION WITH S A O ASSISTANCE AND THE LENGTH OF THE CASE
Dependent Variable: Intention to Cooperate in the Future [N = 75] Independent Variable
Simple r
R Square
F Value
Satisfaction with SAO Assistance Length of the Case
.47 -.28
.22 .27
20.48" 12.86"
*F value signiticant at the p ~< .0l)l level
TABLE 3 REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF SATISFACTION WITH SAO ASSISTANCE WITH PERCEPTION OF TREATMENT BY S A O PERSONNEL AND THE LENGTH OF THE CASE
Dependent Variable: Satisfaction with SA 0 Assistance [N = 75] Independent Variable
Simple r
R Square
F Value
.62 -.17
.39 .39
46.48* 22.94*
Perception of Treatment by SAO Personnel Length of the Case *F value significant at the p ~< .001 level
psychological stress and anxiety), Will there be a conviction? The assessment of whether there will be a conviction will likely be based on attitudes about the system and the effectiveness of its personnel, and on the evidence and facts in the case. A person who is deciding whether or not to report a criminal incident to the police will consider the same factors as a potential prosecution witness. The decision to report the crime, however, will probably rest more heavily on other factors, such as the seriousness of the incident (Hindelang and Gottfredson, 1976; Schneider, Burcart, and Wilson, 1976; Block, 1974; Skogan, 1976), his level of involvement in the incident (Block, 1974), his relationship to the perpetrator of
the act (Block, 1974), and his fear of reprisal from the perpetrator (Tamberrino, 1976). Research has shown that these "situational" factors related to the incident are the most important factors guiding the victim's or witness's decision to report the incident to the police. As was pointed out eariier, other researchers (Biderman, 1967; Ennis, 1967; Reiss, 1967; Hall, 1975) have found that a person's attitudes toward the system and its personnel are also important in guiding a decision to cooperate at both the reporting and prosecutorial stages. Furthermore, it could be expected that a person who had had a previous involvement in the system as a prosecution witness would rely more
150
LEE NORTON
heavily on his or her attitude toward the system and its personnel as a factor in deciding whether to cooperate at both the reporting and prosecutorial stages than would a person whose attitude toward the system and its personnel was not based on a previous system involvement. While the situational factors surrounding a criminal incident will be very important in determining whether or not one decides to report the incident to the police, the attitudes he has toward the system and its personnel will also be important to his cooperation decision at both the reporting and prosecutorial stages, although probably of greater importance to cooperation at the prosecutorial stage. The attitude factor should be of particular importance to those who have had a system involvement, and of extreme importance to those who are likely to have a future system involvement (e.g., the proprietors of businesses who are subject to storehouse-breaking and armed robbery as well as other workers in such businesses). As the findings in this study are discussed, the reader should keep in mind that the findings regarding the attitude and system factors are of greatest relevance to future cooperation as a prosecution witness, and of secondary importance to the reporting of crime to the police, where situational factors surrounding the incident will likely attain primary importance. The findings in this study revealed that both of the attitude factors--satisfaction with SAO assistance and perception of treatment by SAO personnel--were significantly correlated with future cooperation, while only one of the nine system factors-the length of the case--was significantly correlated with future cooperation. The findings also revealed that witness satisfaction with SAO assistance was a more important predictor of future cooperation than was the length of the case, and that witness perception of treatment by SAO personnel was a more important predictor of witness satisfaction with SAO assistance than was the length of the case. While the length of the case was the only
system factor significantly related to future cooperation, the importance of this relationship should not be minimalized. Many researchers (e.g., Cannavale, 1976; Knudten et al., 1976; Ash, 1972) have postulated that the greater the witness's extent of involvement with the criminal justice system, the less his intention to cooperate in the future. This study has demonstrated the existence of such a relationship and has also demonstrated the existence of a negative relationship between the witness's extent of involvement and his or her satisfaction with SAO assistance and perception of treatment by SAO personnel. The relationships between the length of the case and satisfaction with SAO assistance and perception of treatment by SAO personnel may indicate that it is more difficult to provide satisfactory assistance and positive personal treatment as the case becomes longer, or that the frustration level of the witnesses becomes higher as the case becomes longer and partial blame for the length of the case is accorded to the SAO and its personnel. It would appear from the findings that, with the exception of the length of the case, SAO personnel were able to neutralize negative system factors where they existed. Assuming that this neutralization of negative factors had a positive effect on the intention to cooperate in the future, the minimalization of negative experiences for the witness, both in number and/or in severity, would appear to be an important goal of victim/witness assistance. One may argue that a goal of victim/witness assistance should be to promote a positive impression toward the criminal justice process in witnesses; however, the findings in this study tend to indicate that victim/witness assistance personnel probably have their hands full just trying to minimalize the negative experiences. To the extent that such minimalization can lead to a "positive" experience, this may be the best that can be hoped for under the circumstances. The major conclusion that can be drawn from the findings in this study is that the personal factor--the relationships with the
Witness Involvement in the CJ System and Intention to Cooperate in Future Prosecutions
people in the system--is apparently more important than the system and all its problems and inconveniences in the determination on the part of the witness as to whether or not to cooperate in the future. Satisfaction with assistance by SAO personnel was the most important predictor of future cooperation, and the perception of treatment at the hands of SAO personnel was the most important predictor of satisfaction with SAO assistance. The implication of these findings is that the feeling that someone within the system is concerned about one's case and one's problems and is providing adequate assistance is more important than the problems themselves. The tentative conclusion that can be drawn is that perhaps it is not the negative system factors so much as it is the perceived impersonality of the system that creates negative attitudes in witnesses. Therefore, the more impersonal one views the system as being, the less likely one is to involve oneself in that process once again. Conversely, a witness who perceives the system and its personnel as responsive to his or her needs is more likely to enter it again. Criminal justice personnel should be aware of the importance of their interaction with witnesses, because the quality of that interaction may have a considerable impact upon those witnesses' future cooperation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS T h e author wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. Knowlton W. J o h n s o n for his contribution to this research, and to Dr. Mark C. Wozny for reviewing an earlier draft of this article. C o m p u t e r support was provided by the C o m p u t e r Science Center, University of Maryland, College Park.
NOTES T h e response rate a m o n g witnesses was approximately 40 percent, which is a typical response rate for victim/witness research. The response rates for victim/witness surveys generally fall between 30 percent and 50 percent. z T h e r e were no m a j o r problems on the part of the witnesses related to loss of m e m o r y concerning their experiences. Never did more than 10 percent of the respondents fail to respond to a given question due
151
to loss of memory, and for most questions failure to respond due to loss of m e m o r y was under 2 percent. 3 Factor loadings for the individual items forming the intention to cooperate scale are as follows: willingness to participate as a witness on a future case = .67; likelihood of contacting the police or S A O with information about a case involving someone else = .73; likelihood of helping the S A O as a prosecution witness if you see a crime = .81; likelihood of advising another victim or witness to become involved with the police or S A O = .79; likelihood of encouraging others to become involved should they be in your situation = .55; worthwhileness of encouraging someone else in your situation to become involved with the S A O as a witness = .76. 4 Factor Ioadings for the individual items forming the witness satisfaction with S A O assistance scale are as follows: satisfaction with assistance provided by the S A O = .89; helpfulness of services provided by the S A O = .80; effectiveness of the S A O in taking care of your problems = .92; satisfaction with S A O answers to your questions about the case = .80; how favorable your contact with the S A O was = .87. 5 Factor loadings for the individual items forming the witness perception of treatment by S A O personnel scale are as follows: S A O personnel were concerned about my situation = .59; S A O personnel asked questions and gave information without showing any feeling for me = .69; S A O personnel did not spend enough time with me = .63. REFERENCES Ash, M. (1972). On witnesses: A radical critique of criminal court procedures. Notre Dame Lawyer 48: 386-425. Biderman, A. (1967). Report o f a pilot study in the District o f Columbia on victimization and attitudes toward law enforcement, Field Survey I of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Block, R. (1974). Why notify the police: The victim's decision to notify the police of an assault. Criminol. 11 : 555-569. Bloom, M. (1974). Don't witnesses have any rights? Natl. Civic Rev. (October): 462-466, 502. Cannavale, F., and the Institute for Law and Social Research (1976). Witness cooperation. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Ennis, P. (1967). Criminal victimization in the United States: A report on a national survey, Field Survey II of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. G o v e r n m e n t Printing Office. Fogelman, S. (1971). Compensation to victims of violence: The forgotten program. M.S.W. thesis, University of Southern California. Hall, D. (1975). The role of the victim in the prosecution and disposition of a criminal case. Vanderbilt L a w Rev. 28: 931-985.
152
LEE NORTON
Hindelang, M., and Gottfredson, M. (1976). The victim's decision not to invoke the criminal justice process.. In Criminal justice and the victim, ed. W.F. McDonald, pp. 57-78. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Johnson, K.; Tamberrino, R.; Marshall, A.; and Moyer, A. (1978). Consumer protection: Responsiveness of control agents to victims of fraud. Victimol. 3: 63-76.
National District Attorneys Association (1975). Commission on Victim-Witness Assistance: Philadelphia Unit Report (February). Reiss, A. (1967). Studies in crime and law enforcement in major metropolitan areas, Vols. l and 2, Field Survey III of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Knudten, R.: Meade, A.; Knudten, M.; and Doerner, W. (1976). The victim in the administration of criminal justice: Problems and perceptions. In Criminal justice and the victim, ed. W.F. McDonald, pp. 115-146. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Schneider, A.; Burcart, J,: and Wilson, L. (1976). The role of attitudes in the decision to report crimes to the police. In Criminallustice and the victim, ed. W.F. McDonald, pp. 89-113. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lynch, victims: and the Beverly
Skogan, W. (1976). Citizen reporting of crime: Some national panel data. Criminol. 13: 535-549.
R. (1976). Improving the treatment of Some guides for action. In Criminal justice victim, ed, W.F. McDonald, pp. 165-176. Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
McDonald, W. (1976). Criminal justice and the victim: An introduction. In Criminal justice and the victim, cd. W.F. McDonald, pp. 17-55. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1973). Courts. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Tamberrino, R. (1976). Exploring the relationship between social control agents and victims of fraudulent crimes. M.A. thesis, University of Maryland. Ziegenhagen, E. (1976). Toward a theory of victimcriminal justice system interactions. In Criminal justice and the victim, ed. W.F. McDonald, pp. 261280. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
0047-2352/83/020143-10503.00/0 Copyright © 1983 Pergamon Press Ltd.
W I T N E S S I N V O L V E M E N T IN THE C R I M I N A L JUSTICE S Y S T E M A N D I N T E N T I O N TO C O O P E R A T E IN F U T U R E PROSECUTIONS
LEE NORTON
Ecosometrics Inc. 4715 Cordell Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814
ABSTRACT This study examined whether systems-related problems or relationships with criminal justice personnel were the more important factors associated with witness intention to cooperate in future prosecutions. Using correlation and regression analysis procedures it was determined that factors related to the responsiveness o f criminal justice system personnel were significantly greater predictors than systemrelated factors o f an intention to cooperate in the future. It was concluded that the responsiveness o f personnel to a witness is a very important factor in the witness's formation o f attitudes toward the criminal justice system and his or her participation in that system, and that the personnel in a prosecutor's office who interact with witnesses should be aware o f the role they play in influencing these attitudes.
Criminal justice agencies are dependent upon victims of crime and witnesses to such events for further information regarding criminal behavior. Once witnesses are identified and known to police, the question of their cooperation in the prosecution of the case is critically important and is regarded as a problem by most prosecuting attorneys in urban jurisdictions (Cannavale, 1976). A survey of assistant district attorneys revealed that 80 percent of the prosecutors considered the problem of witness noncooperation as either serious or very serious (National District Attorneys Association, 1975). A 1972 study in the Washington, D.C. prosecutor's office showed that after the
victim had decided to report the crime but before the problem o f continuances and delay had begun to operate, many crime cases were lost because witnesses did not want to cooperate. Of 4,188 cases of murder, rape, robbery, burglary, and serious assault between strangers, 47 percent were dropped at the prosecutor's initial screening because witnesses were uncooperative (McDonald, 1976). A study by Milwaukee's prosecutor found that of 240 witnesses surveyed, almost 40 percent indicated that they would be less cooperative in the future (Bloom, 1974). There are two major factors that are believed to be associated with the witness's
143
144
LEE NORTON
decision to cooperate in a prosecution. Many criminologists believe that attitudes such as lack of trust and confidence in police, prosecutors, and judges are very important in the witness's decision not to become involved in the criminal justice process. Cannavale (1976) noted an initial predisposition (not necessarily related to prior contact with criminal justice agencies) against volunteering help. "This type of predisposition," he stated, "includes prejudices against, and attitudes toward, personnel and agencies of the criminal justice system" (Cannavale, 1976: 9). Biderman (1967), Ennis (1967), and Reiss (1967) found negative attitudes held by victims concerning the ability of the legal system to carry out justice to be the most important factor in the decision not to become involved in the criminal justice process. A second factor that has been mentioned as a cause of witness noncooperation is witnesses encountering problems associated with their involvement in the criminal justice system. Some of these problems include trial delay, loss of income, and inappropriate accommodations in getting to, or waiting in, the court building. Cannavale (1976: 9) noted that, "Involvement in, or the operation of, the criminal justice system presents witnesses with so many major inconveniences and problems that, all too frequently, even initially cooperative witnesses wish they had never stepped forward and vow never to do so again." The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1973) observed that victims, witnesses, defendants, and jurors all experience delay, inconvenience, and confusion within our criminal justice system. Ash (1972) noted that the court system favors insider interests over outsider interests, and thus, the majority of inconveniences affect witnesses rather than judges and attorneys. Victim survey research projects conducted in Alameda County, California, and New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1974 to 1975 showed that the victims of crime and the witnesses to crime are themselves victims of an inadequate, indifferent criminal justice system (Lynch, 1976).
Several researchers have studied the response of criminal justice personnel to the needs of witnesses involved in the system and the effect that this has on the witness's attitudes toward the system and its personnel. In a study of 49 victims of violent crime in California who had collected compensation money, 71 percent expressed a desire for personal contact and help from someone in the system, indicating that they just wanted someone to talk to, or someone to help them sort out their problems and help them get back on their feet (Fogelman, 1971). Many of these victims indicated that the money did not compensate their need for personal contact and assistance from someone in the system. In a study of 54 fraud victims in Maryland, Johnson et al. (1978) found that esteem for the prosecutor's office and its personnel was significantly higher among those victims who had a more extensive contact with the investigator (fraud unit caseworker) and among victims who had a more positive perception of the amount of concern shown for them by the investigator. In addition, Hall (1975) found that a more positive appraisal of the prosecutor's office by victims was associated with a greater intention on their part to cooperate in the prosecution of criminal cases. There would appear to be some question as to whether system factors are themselves more important in the attitudes that witnesses develop toward the system and its personnel, or whether the persons working in the criminal justice system and the influence they have upon the witnesses through their involvement with them is more important in the development of these attitudes. This study was designed to examine that question. The study looks at a group of prosecution witnesses in felony cases and assesses the relationships between their system-related problems, their attitudes toward the personnel of the prosecutor's office with which they had contact, and their intention to cooperate in the future should they again be victims or witnesses in a criminal incident.
Witness Involvement in the CJ System and Intention to Cooperate in Future Prosecutions METHODS D a t a for the study were generated from 100 felony case witnesses (including 73 victim/witnesses) who had assisted the Prince G e o r g e ' s County (Maryland) State's A t t o r n e y ' s Office (SAO) in prosecuting the cases in which they were involved. The witnesses were all involved in separate cases which had been processed through the Prince G e o r g e ' s County criminal justice system in 1978. The sample did not include any professional witnesses (e.g., undercover police officers or informants). Assistance was provided to these witnesses by the Victim/Witness Assistance Unit within the S A O . This unit was set up to facilitate the prosecution of felony cases by providing case information (e.g., the name of the prosecuting attorney and court dates) to witnesses and helping to solve any problems they might encounter due to their involvement in the system. The sample for this study was drawn from prosecution witnesses who had been involved in felony cases with an indictment date between D e c e m b e r 21, 1977 and May 10, 1978 (approximately four and a half months). O v e r this four and a half month period 421 felony cases were processed through the Prince G e o r g e ' s County SAO. Two hundred twenty-one of the case files were unavailable to the researchers because they were being used by the SAO. Twentyeight additional cases were not used because they were cases in which only expert witnesses participated (drug cases using only police witnesses, for example). For the remaining 172 cases, an attempt was m a d e to contact the most important witnesses. First, an attempt was made to contact any victims within the 172 cases. If a victim on a case was interviewed, then that case was set aside because it was decided not to interview more than one witness on any case. This process netted 73 victim interviews. An attempt was then made to contact eyewitnesses and material witnesses using the same process, and the remaining 27 interviews came from these groups of witnesses. J
145
Each witness was interviewed by telephone in March 1979 concerning his or her experience as a prosecution witness. The interview included questions designed to elicit information on all facets of the case process (from the criminal incident itself to the final disposition in the case) from the responding witnesses. 2 Additional information on the witnesses and the cases in which they were involved was collected from records in the Prince George's County SAO. Eighteen of the 100 witnesses were involved in murder, rape, or assault cases (crimes against persons). Thirty-three of the witnesses were involved in robbery cases. The greatest number of respondents (45) were involved in burglary, larceny, housebreaking, or storehouse-breaking cases (property crimes). The remaining four witnesses in the sample were involved in forgery, embezzlement, or false pretenses cases (white-collar crimes). Seventy-two of the 100 witnesses were complete strangers to the defendant, 15 were friends of the defendant, and 7 were relatives of the defendant in their case. Of the sampled persons, 55 percent were male and 63 percent were white. Forty-five percent of the respondents were 29 years of age or younger, 39 percent were between 30 and 49, and 16 percent were 50 years of age or older. Twenty of the 100 witnesses had had a previous involvement as a prosecution witness in Prince George's County, and 13 respondents were already involved as prosecution witnesses on another case in Prince George's County.
INSTRUMENTATION Factor analysis procedures were used to develop a dependent measure of future cooperation and two attitude m e a s u r e s - witness satisfaction with the provision of SAO assistance and witness perception of treatment by SAO personnel. The future cooperation factor consisted of six items related to the witness's possible participation as a prosecution witness in a future case
146
LEE NORTON
and the witness's e n c o u r a g e m e n t of others to cooperate. Items dealing with the witness's cooperation in the future included the likelihood that he or she would cooperate as a witness in general, and specifically as an eyewitness and as a material witness. Items related to the witness's encouragement of others included whether he had encouraged others to cooperate should they be involved in an incident, how likely he was to encourage s o m e o n e he knew to be involved in an incident to cooperate, and how worthwhile he thought it was to encourage others to cooperate. 3 Witness satisfaction with assistance provided by the S A O was formed by five items measuring satisfaction in general, and specifically the extent to which the witness felt that S A O assistance was helpful and effective in dealing with his or her problems. ~ Witness perception of treatment by S A O personnel was measured by three items related to the d e m e a n o r of personnel in their interactions with witnesses. These items included a lack of feeling on the part of personnel, the amount of concern shown by personnel for the witness's situation, and whether personnel spent enough time with the witness. 5 T h e analysis included nine system factors related to the processing of the case, including the final outcome. There were three possible outcomes of a c a s e - - a nolle prosequi (a decision not to prosecute), a finding of innocence or acquittal, or a verdict of guilty (either pied or found). Each witness was also questioned as to whether or not he or she had to take time off from work because of involvement in the case, and if so how much time, and whether or not any of his or her property was held for identification purposes at a trial. The length of the case from the indictment of the defendant(s) to the final disposition in the case was measured in days and collapsed into three categories--4-7 months, 8-12 months, or over one year. W h e t h e r or not the case went to trial and whether or not the case was plea bargained were also included as system-related factors in this analysis. Witnesses who were in-
volved in cases that went to trial were asked if there were any delays or continuances of the trial and if court sessions started on time. Three demographic characteristics of the sample population, gender, race, and age, were included in the analysis to check for any significant differences between various subgroups of the sample in future cooperation and witness attitudes toward the SAO.
FINDINGS In order to understand better later analysis findings, some brief descriptive data on the variables under study are presented. Twenty-seven percent of the witnesses reported a very strong intention to cooperate in future prosecutions, with another 30 percent reporting a moderately strong intention to cooperate. Twenty-two percent of the sampled persons indicated a moderate intention to cooperate, with 11 and 9 percent respectively indicating a moderately low or very low intention to cooperate in future prosecutions. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents reported a very high level of satisfaction with SAO assistance, with another 31 reporting a moderately high level of satisfaction. Twenty-five percent of the sampled individuals indicated a moderate level of satisfaction, with I0 and 7 percent respectively indicating a moderately low or very low level of satisfaction with SAO assistance. Twenty-seven percent of the witnesses reported a very positive perception of treatment by SAO personnel, with another 30 percent reporting a moderately positive perception. Thirty-seven percent of the respondents indicated a moderately negative perception, with only 6 percent indicating a very negative perception of treatment by SAO personnel. Ninety percent of the cases ended in a verdict of guilty. Six percent ended in acquittal or a verdict of innocence, with 4 percent of the cases ending in a decision by the S A O not to prosecute. Fifty-nine percent of the witnesses had to take time off from work be-
Witness Involvement in the CJ System and Intention to Cooperate in Future Prosecutions cause of their participation in the case. Of the persons who had to take time off from work, 49 percent took less than one day, 29 percent took from one to three days, while 22 percent missed over three days of work. Three-fifths (60 percent) of the persons who had to take time off from work received no financial compensation for the time they missed. Twenty-nine percent of the witnesses had their property held for identification purposes in court. Forty-nine percent of the witnesses were involved in cases lasting from 4 to 7 months, 35 percent in cases lasting from 8 to 12 months, and 16 percent in cases lasting over a year. Sixty-seven percent of the witnesses were involved in cases that went to trial, while 23 percent were involved in cases that were plea bargained. Of those witnesses involved in cases that went to trial, 52 percent said that there were delays or continuances of the trial, and 32 percent said that court sessions did not start on time. The relationships between all of the variables under study were examined through correlation analysis (see Table 1). Relationships of specific importance to this study included those between the dependent measure (future cooperation) and all of the independent variables (attitude, system, and demographic) as well as the relationships between the attitude factors, and between the attitude factors and the other independent variables (system and demographic). Regression analysis procedures were performed to explain further the nature of specific relationships between the dependent and independent variables. Results of the correlation analysis showed that both attitude factors (witness satisfaction with SAO assistance and witness perception of treatment by SAO personnel) were significantly associated with future cooperation. The association between witness satisfaction with the provision of SAO assistance and future cooperation indicates that witnesses who were more satisfied with SAO assistance reported a greater intention to cooperate in the future than witnesses who were less satisfied. The correlation between witness perception of treatment by
147
SAO personnel and future cooperation indicates that witnesses with a more positive perception of treatment had a stronger intention to cooperate in the future than witnesses with a less positive perception of treatment. Only one system factor--the length of the case--was significantly associated with future cooperation. Witnesses involved in longer cases reported a lesser intention to cooperate in the future than did witnesses involved in shorter cases. Among the demographic variables, gender and race were both significantly associated with future cooperation. Males and whites indicated a greater intention to cooperate in the future than did females and blacks, respectively. Upon examining the relationship between the attitude factors, it was found that witnesses with a more positive perception of treatment by SAO personnel reported an overwhelmingly higher level of satisfaction with the provision of SAO assistance than did witnesses with a less positive perception of SAO treatment. In looking at the association between the system and attitude factors it was found that witnesses involved in longer cases reported significantly less satisfaction with the provision of SAO assistance and a more negative perception of treatment by SAO personnel than did witnesses involved in shorter cases. Finally, an examination of the relationships between the demographic and attitude factors showed that whites and males reported significantly greater satisfaction with SAO assistance than did blacks and females, respectively. Because this analysis was concerned with the relative importance of the contribution of treatment by criminal justice personnel and the impact of the system on the intention to cooperate in the future, regression analysis was performed to examine these relationships further. The first regression analysis included future cooperation as the dependent measure, with witness satisfaction with SAO assistance and the length of the case as the independent measures. The results of this analysis showed that satisfaction with the provision of SAO assistance
148
LEE NORTON TABLE 1
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FUTURE COOPERATION, ATTITUDE, SYSTEM, AND DEMOGRAPttlC FACTORS
Satisfaction with SAO Assistance
Future Cooperation Independent Variables
Simple r
Satisfaction with S A O Assistance T r e a t m e n t by S A O Personnel O u t c o m e of the Case Time Off from W o r k H o w Much Time Off Property Held for ID Length of the Case Case W e n t to Trial Delays or Continuances Court Sessions on Time Case Was Plea Bargained Race of Witness G e n d e r of Witness Age of Witness
p Level
.46 .42 .10 -.03 -.09 -.06 -.25 - . 16 .11 -.06 .13 .17 -.20 .07
Simple
r
Treatment by SAO Personnel
p Level
Simple r
p Level
.00l NS NS NS
-.16 .03 .05
-NS NS NS NS
.001 .001 NS* NS NS NS •(1tl8 NS NS NS NS .(154 .023 NS
.64 .12 - . 15 - . 11 • 10
NS
- . 18,
.043
-.(19
NS
.04
-.25 . 10
.03
NS
.14 • 16 • 19 -.22
NS NS .035 .016
.14 -.12
.04
NS
.01
-
.07 -.01 .00
.014 NS NS
NS NS NS NS NS
*NS - nonsignificant correlation was the m o r e important predictor of future cooperation (see Table 2). The second regression analysis was perf o r m e d to assess the relative contribution of t r e a t m e n t by criminal justice personnel and system involvement to witness satisfaction with S A O assistance. This regression analysis included witness satisfaction with S A O assistance as the dependent measure, with witness perception of treatment by S A O personnel and the length of the case as the independent variables. The results of this analysis showed that the witness's perception of t r e a t m e n t by S A O personnel was the m o r e important predictor of witness satisfaction with S A O assistance (see Table 3). DISCUSSION This study has been directed mainly toward an understanding of the important
factors related to witness cooperation in felony prosecutions• It should be pointed out that witness cooperation in a prosecution is different from cooperation with the police (i.e., reporting a criminal incident to the police and providing them with the necessary information to pursue the case). A person who is contemplating a decision as to whether or not to cooperate in a felony prosecution has already passed the hurdle of reporting the crime of which he or she was a victim or witness. The decision as to whether to cooperate or not is likely to be based on attitudes toward the criminal justice system and its personnel, and whether he or she feels that participation will be worth the effort. In other words, given that he or she is going to have to take time off from work and will probably have to testify in court (which will likely mean some amount of financial loss as well as
Witness Involvement in the CJ System and Intention to Cooperate in Future Prosecutions
149
TABLE 2 REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF FUTURE COOPERATION WITH SATISFACTION WITH S A O ASSISTANCE AND THE LENGTH OF THE CASE
Dependent Variable: Intention to Cooperate in the Future [N = 75] Independent Variable
Simple r
R Square
F Value
Satisfaction with SAO Assistance Length of the Case
.47 -.28
.22 .27
20.48" 12.86"
*F value signiticant at the p ~< .0l)l level
TABLE 3 REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF SATISFACTION WITH SAO ASSISTANCE WITH PERCEPTION OF TREATMENT BY S A O PERSONNEL AND THE LENGTH OF THE CASE
Dependent Variable: Satisfaction with SA 0 Assistance [N = 75] Independent Variable
Simple r
R Square
F Value
.62 -.17
.39 .39
46.48* 22.94*
Perception of Treatment by SAO Personnel Length of the Case *F value significant at the p ~< .001 level
psychological stress and anxiety), Will there be a conviction? The assessment of whether there will be a conviction will likely be based on attitudes about the system and the effectiveness of its personnel, and on the evidence and facts in the case. A person who is deciding whether or not to report a criminal incident to the police will consider the same factors as a potential prosecution witness. The decision to report the crime, however, will probably rest more heavily on other factors, such as the seriousness of the incident (Hindelang and Gottfredson, 1976; Schneider, Burcart, and Wilson, 1976; Block, 1974; Skogan, 1976), his level of involvement in the incident (Block, 1974), his relationship to the perpetrator of
the act (Block, 1974), and his fear of reprisal from the perpetrator (Tamberrino, 1976). Research has shown that these "situational" factors related to the incident are the most important factors guiding the victim's or witness's decision to report the incident to the police. As was pointed out eariier, other researchers (Biderman, 1967; Ennis, 1967; Reiss, 1967; Hall, 1975) have found that a person's attitudes toward the system and its personnel are also important in guiding a decision to cooperate at both the reporting and prosecutorial stages. Furthermore, it could be expected that a person who had had a previous involvement in the system as a prosecution witness would rely more
150
LEE NORTON
heavily on his or her attitude toward the system and its personnel as a factor in deciding whether to cooperate at both the reporting and prosecutorial stages than would a person whose attitude toward the system and its personnel was not based on a previous system involvement. While the situational factors surrounding a criminal incident will be very important in determining whether or not one decides to report the incident to the police, the attitudes he has toward the system and its personnel will also be important to his cooperation decision at both the reporting and prosecutorial stages, although probably of greater importance to cooperation at the prosecutorial stage. The attitude factor should be of particular importance to those who have had a system involvement, and of extreme importance to those who are likely to have a future system involvement (e.g., the proprietors of businesses who are subject to storehouse-breaking and armed robbery as well as other workers in such businesses). As the findings in this study are discussed, the reader should keep in mind that the findings regarding the attitude and system factors are of greatest relevance to future cooperation as a prosecution witness, and of secondary importance to the reporting of crime to the police, where situational factors surrounding the incident will likely attain primary importance. The findings in this study revealed that both of the attitude factors--satisfaction with SAO assistance and perception of treatment by SAO personnel--were significantly correlated with future cooperation, while only one of the nine system factors-the length of the case--was significantly correlated with future cooperation. The findings also revealed that witness satisfaction with SAO assistance was a more important predictor of future cooperation than was the length of the case, and that witness perception of treatment by SAO personnel was a more important predictor of witness satisfaction with SAO assistance than was the length of the case. While the length of the case was the only
system factor significantly related to future cooperation, the importance of this relationship should not be minimalized. Many researchers (e.g., Cannavale, 1976; Knudten et al., 1976; Ash, 1972) have postulated that the greater the witness's extent of involvement with the criminal justice system, the less his intention to cooperate in the future. This study has demonstrated the existence of such a relationship and has also demonstrated the existence of a negative relationship between the witness's extent of involvement and his or her satisfaction with SAO assistance and perception of treatment by SAO personnel. The relationships between the length of the case and satisfaction with SAO assistance and perception of treatment by SAO personnel may indicate that it is more difficult to provide satisfactory assistance and positive personal treatment as the case becomes longer, or that the frustration level of the witnesses becomes higher as the case becomes longer and partial blame for the length of the case is accorded to the SAO and its personnel. It would appear from the findings that, with the exception of the length of the case, SAO personnel were able to neutralize negative system factors where they existed. Assuming that this neutralization of negative factors had a positive effect on the intention to cooperate in the future, the minimalization of negative experiences for the witness, both in number and/or in severity, would appear to be an important goal of victim/witness assistance. One may argue that a goal of victim/witness assistance should be to promote a positive impression toward the criminal justice process in witnesses; however, the findings in this study tend to indicate that victim/witness assistance personnel probably have their hands full just trying to minimalize the negative experiences. To the extent that such minimalization can lead to a "positive" experience, this may be the best that can be hoped for under the circumstances. The major conclusion that can be drawn from the findings in this study is that the personal factor--the relationships with the
Witness Involvement in the CJ System and Intention to Cooperate in Future Prosecutions
people in the system--is apparently more important than the system and all its problems and inconveniences in the determination on the part of the witness as to whether or not to cooperate in the future. Satisfaction with assistance by SAO personnel was the most important predictor of future cooperation, and the perception of treatment at the hands of SAO personnel was the most important predictor of satisfaction with SAO assistance. The implication of these findings is that the feeling that someone within the system is concerned about one's case and one's problems and is providing adequate assistance is more important than the problems themselves. The tentative conclusion that can be drawn is that perhaps it is not the negative system factors so much as it is the perceived impersonality of the system that creates negative attitudes in witnesses. Therefore, the more impersonal one views the system as being, the less likely one is to involve oneself in that process once again. Conversely, a witness who perceives the system and its personnel as responsive to his or her needs is more likely to enter it again. Criminal justice personnel should be aware of the importance of their interaction with witnesses, because the quality of that interaction may have a considerable impact upon those witnesses' future cooperation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS T h e author wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. Knowlton W. J o h n s o n for his contribution to this research, and to Dr. Mark C. Wozny for reviewing an earlier draft of this article. C o m p u t e r support was provided by the C o m p u t e r Science Center, University of Maryland, College Park.
NOTES T h e response rate a m o n g witnesses was approximately 40 percent, which is a typical response rate for victim/witness research. The response rates for victim/witness surveys generally fall between 30 percent and 50 percent. z T h e r e were no m a j o r problems on the part of the witnesses related to loss of m e m o r y concerning their experiences. Never did more than 10 percent of the respondents fail to respond to a given question due
151
to loss of memory, and for most questions failure to respond due to loss of m e m o r y was under 2 percent. 3 Factor loadings for the individual items forming the intention to cooperate scale are as follows: willingness to participate as a witness on a future case = .67; likelihood of contacting the police or S A O with information about a case involving someone else = .73; likelihood of helping the S A O as a prosecution witness if you see a crime = .81; likelihood of advising another victim or witness to become involved with the police or S A O = .79; likelihood of encouraging others to become involved should they be in your situation = .55; worthwhileness of encouraging someone else in your situation to become involved with the S A O as a witness = .76. 4 Factor Ioadings for the individual items forming the witness satisfaction with S A O assistance scale are as follows: satisfaction with assistance provided by the S A O = .89; helpfulness of services provided by the S A O = .80; effectiveness of the S A O in taking care of your problems = .92; satisfaction with S A O answers to your questions about the case = .80; how favorable your contact with the S A O was = .87. 5 Factor loadings for the individual items forming the witness perception of treatment by S A O personnel scale are as follows: S A O personnel were concerned about my situation = .59; S A O personnel asked questions and gave information without showing any feeling for me = .69; S A O personnel did not spend enough time with me = .63. REFERENCES Ash, M. (1972). On witnesses: A radical critique of criminal court procedures. Notre Dame Lawyer 48: 386-425. Biderman, A. (1967). Report o f a pilot study in the District o f Columbia on victimization and attitudes toward law enforcement, Field Survey I of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Block, R. (1974). Why notify the police: The victim's decision to notify the police of an assault. Criminol. 11 : 555-569. Bloom, M. (1974). Don't witnesses have any rights? Natl. Civic Rev. (October): 462-466, 502. Cannavale, F., and the Institute for Law and Social Research (1976). Witness cooperation. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Ennis, P. (1967). Criminal victimization in the United States: A report on a national survey, Field Survey II of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. G o v e r n m e n t Printing Office. Fogelman, S. (1971). Compensation to victims of violence: The forgotten program. M.S.W. thesis, University of Southern California. Hall, D. (1975). The role of the victim in the prosecution and disposition of a criminal case. Vanderbilt L a w Rev. 28: 931-985.
152
LEE NORTON
Hindelang, M., and Gottfredson, M. (1976). The victim's decision not to invoke the criminal justice process.. In Criminal justice and the victim, ed. W.F. McDonald, pp. 57-78. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Johnson, K.; Tamberrino, R.; Marshall, A.; and Moyer, A. (1978). Consumer protection: Responsiveness of control agents to victims of fraud. Victimol. 3: 63-76.
National District Attorneys Association (1975). Commission on Victim-Witness Assistance: Philadelphia Unit Report (February). Reiss, A. (1967). Studies in crime and law enforcement in major metropolitan areas, Vols. l and 2, Field Survey III of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Knudten, R.: Meade, A.; Knudten, M.; and Doerner, W. (1976). The victim in the administration of criminal justice: Problems and perceptions. In Criminal justice and the victim, ed. W.F. McDonald, pp. 115-146. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Schneider, A.; Burcart, J,: and Wilson, L. (1976). The role of attitudes in the decision to report crimes to the police. In Criminallustice and the victim, ed. W.F. McDonald, pp. 89-113. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lynch, victims: and the Beverly
Skogan, W. (1976). Citizen reporting of crime: Some national panel data. Criminol. 13: 535-549.
R. (1976). Improving the treatment of Some guides for action. In Criminal justice victim, ed, W.F. McDonald, pp. 165-176. Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
McDonald, W. (1976). Criminal justice and the victim: An introduction. In Criminal justice and the victim, cd. W.F. McDonald, pp. 17-55. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1973). Courts. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Tamberrino, R. (1976). Exploring the relationship between social control agents and victims of fraudulent crimes. M.A. thesis, University of Maryland. Ziegenhagen, E. (1976). Toward a theory of victimcriminal justice system interactions. In Criminal justice and the victim, ed. W.F. McDonald, pp. 261280. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.