|
|
|
|
Chicago violence underscores concern about security for judges |
|
March 5, 2005 —
In an era when Americans are security conscious as never before, the men and women
who preside over the nation's courts and decide the fate of criminals and terrorists
go about daily life largely unprotected and vulnerable.
The problem of security
was underscored this week with the execution-style murders of federal Judge Joan
Humphrey Lefkow's husband and 89-year-old mother in the basement of their family
home on an affluent North Side Chicago street. Some fellow judges say it shows
the need for better security outside the courthouse walls, and security experts
say the decision to withdraw protection that Lefkow had been receiving after a
controversial ruling shows the importance of assessing every threat. "Clearly,
it was an error to remove security so quickly, so the assessment wasn't adequate,"
said Robert McCrie, a professor at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice
and authority of security administration. He says the key is finding out when
the threat is an empty one and when to move in with armed federal marshals,
home security systems and other protective measures. Lefkow received many
threats after she ordered white supremacist Matthew Hale to stop using the name
World Church of the Creator for his extremist organization because of a trademark
lawsuit. Hale, 33, was convicted last year of soliciting an undercover FBI informant
to murder Lefkow in retaliation, and his sentencing is set for next month. Lefkow
had special protection for about two weeks around the time of Hale's arrest in
2003, but after releasing the officers, she and her husband went about business
as usual. The home still had no security system when the judge returned from work
Monday to find her husband Michael, an attorney, and mother, Donna Humphrey, shot
to death in the basement. Lefkow and her daughters are now being guarded by federal
marshals. Hale denies any involvement in the killings. Federal marshals dispute
any notion that they erred in assessing the risk to Lefkow. "Mr. McCrie is entitled
to his opinion but we don't know how he can formulate an opinion on a process
that he has never been privy to," said Shannon Metzger, a spokeswoman for the
marshals office in Chicago. She said the marshals stand behind the assessment
they made in the Lefkow case after consulting the FBI and prosecutors. The judge
consented to ending special protection after a few weeks. In recent years, Capitol
Hill has recognized the dangers that federal judges can face. They can redact
any information in financial disclosure statements in the public record, including
their home addresses. And Congress has stiffened the penalties for assaults against
federal judges or attempts to intimidate them. "It's unfortunate that it takes
acts or threats of violence to put a human face on the federal judiciary," Sen.
Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told the Senate in urging approval of the tougher penalties
two months after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But experts said assessing
the threat should be not be left up to the judge. Such decisions should be made
by law enforcement professionals -- even if the judge dislikes it or disagrees.
Former FBI profiler Bob Scigalski, now with Quest Consultants International, based
in the Chicago suburb of Schaumburg, says the assessment begins with the history
of the person who makes the threat. Has he been violent in the past? Does he subscribe
to some political doctrine that holds violence is acceptable? "They associate
themselves with a violent cause to gain power and control, and that is how they
get power and control in a life that otherwise doesn't have those things," says
Scigalski. "You have to ask how far this guy would go to maintain a power base."
Statistically, such violence is unusual. Only three federal judges have ever been
murdered, according to the Washington-based Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts. However, the increase in terrorism, both domestic and foreign, is making
judges feel more vulnerable now, and they are increasingly concerned about their
families as well. "I think there is an increased need and awareness because there
are people who are interested in attacking the very fabric of our democracy,"
says U.S. District Judge Marvin E. Aspen, a colleague of Lefkow's. "Judges get
all kinds of threats," he says. "Most don't amount to anything, but occasionally
there is a threat that is a very viable one. Those have to be identified." Inside
courthouses, judges are protected by ever-present marshals, bailiffs, court security,
officers, police and FBI agents. But outside the courthouse, it's a different
story. Judges have no special protection unless a threat is recognized. They drive
home from work, eat out at restaurants, visit shopping centers and walk in their
neighborhoods like anyone else. When the threat is recognized, guards can be assigned
to them and their children, police can be posted outside their homes, and the
staff of apartment buildings can be screened for anyone who might pose a danger.
Burglar alarms can be installed as well. The marshals' office in Chicago says
that in one recent year it managed and monitored 20 separate security details
for judges and federal prosecutors who had been threatened, a dozen of them round-the-clock
operations. But all that requires an accurate assessment of the risk. Meanwhile,
some judges are feeling more vulnerable than ever. Says U.S. District Judge Wayne
R. Andersen, who was with Lefkow in the hours after she discovered the bodies:
"This horrible tragedy has got to serve as the basis for a substantial increase
in security for judges and their families." (Copyright 2005 by The Associated
Press. All Rights Reserved.) from
|
|
|
|
| |
© 2009 BHE Security: Technical Surveillance Counter Measures
|
|
|
