Why Government Should Support Criminal Justice

Budgeting Issue

Introduction

The main idea of the article by Glowicki (2017) is that the role that Kentucky governor Bevin was facing as he tried to get the state budget under control is a lose-lose role. His point is that Kentucky cannot afford to cut its justice system budget anymore as cuts have already been made so many times in the past. It is completely on topic and to the point.

The reasons I chose to analyze this article are, first, that in 2017 Kentucky state governor Matt Bevin was faced with the task of reducing the state budget. He looked to make cuts throughout the criminal justice system. Many people were upset with his choices and as a result, he was voted out of office in the next election. Understanding why that happened is important both for my state and for me as a criminal justice administration student. Second, I like to understand more about how important budgeting is to both the state and the justice system and how the two should work together to overcome challenges like this one.

Author’s Conclusions and Recommendations

Glowicki (2017) concluded that “any cuts would affect assistant prosecutors, crime victims’ advocates and other staff, equating to one in three employees at commonwealth’s attorneys’ offices, Cohron estimated in September.” Yet as Glowicki (2017) also reports, such cuts have been made so many times in Kentucky that there is really nothing left to cut. Any further reductions would essentially gut the justice system and make it so that prosecutors can no longer do the jobs they are meant to do. The implication that Glowicki makes is that the governor needs to find some other way to reduce the state budget or increase state revenue. Cutting the budget of the justice system should be a non-starter, as it would mean that attorneys would lose a third of their staff, and prosecutors’ offices would be undercut as well. In short, the justice system cannot be served by such cuts.

My Conclusions and Recommendations

My conclusion is that Glowicki (2017) is correct: politicians need to understand that the criminal justice system existed before they came to office and it will exist long after they are gone. They are there to serve the people and that means making sure the system is supported—not hurt. Indeed, governors play an important role in supporting the criminal justice system in their state. One way they can do this is by providing funding for needed resources, such as crime labs, police officer training, and victim services. They can also use their bully pulpit to draw attention to issues within the system and push for reforms. Additionally, governors can appoint members to key positions within the criminal justice system, such as judges and district attorneys. By doing so, they can ensure that those who are charged with carrying out the law are committed to justice and fairness. Ultimately, Governors have a unique opportunity to make a positive impact on the criminal justice system in their state. They should be striving to make this critically important impact—not working against the system to fulfill some arbitrary political mandate put on them by their party.

The criminal justice system is a vital part of any state government. It is responsible for ensuring public safety and delivering justice to those who have committed crimes. A strong criminal justice system requires a significant investment of resources, including personnel, facilities, and technology. Unfortunately, many state governments have been forced to cut funding for the criminal justice system in recent years. This has led to a decline in the quality of services and an increase in crime rates. As a result, it is essential that state governors ensure that the criminal justice system is given a strong budget. By doing so, they can help to ensure the safety of their citizens and the delivery of justice.

One way to increase state funding of the justice system is to raise taxes. This would generate additional revenue that could be used to support the justice system. However, raising taxes is never a popular political move, which is why the governor wanted instead to make cuts to existing budgets. But those cuts would be detrimental to the system, so really it should be the governor’s job to justify to the public the raising of taxes.

Of course, another way to increase state funding of the justice system is to reduce spending in other areas of the state budget. This would free up money that could be redirected to the justice system. But the governor would have to look into other areas where money could be moved. He is likely to run into the same problems.