Kentucky Budget Cuts and the Criminal Justice System
This paper analyzes a 2017 news article by Glowicki examining Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin's proposed budget cuts to the state criminal justice system. The paper summarizes the article's key conclusions — that further reductions would devastate prosecutors' offices and victim services — and then offers the student's own recommendations. These include alternative revenue strategies such as targeted fee increases, toll revenues, and tax adjustments, as well as a broader argument that governors have a responsibility to fund and support the justice system rather than undermine it for political reasons. The paper emphasizes that a well-resourced criminal justice system is essential to public safety and the fair delivery of justice.
- Introduction: Overview of Kentucky budget crisis and article
- Author's Conclusions and Recommendations: Glowicki's warnings about criminal justice cuts
- My Conclusions and Recommendations: Governor's responsibility to fund justice system
- Alternative Funding Strategies for the Justice System: Taxes, reallocation, and creative revenue options
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper clearly separates the author's conclusions from the student's own analysis, making the critical thinking process transparent and easy to follow.
- It moves beyond simply summarizing the source article to offer concrete, alternative policy recommendations — raising taxes, reallocating spending, or implementing new fee-based revenue — demonstrating applied reasoning.
- The student contextualizes the issue personally, explaining why the topic matters both to their state and their academic field, which grounds the analysis in a meaningful framework.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates the technique of source analysis combined with independent policy argumentation. The student first distills an expert's conclusions faithfully, then transitions into an original argument about what the governor should do instead. This two-part structure — "what the source says" followed by "what I conclude" — is a common and effective format for reflection and response papers in criminal justice and public administration courses.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introduction that identifies the source article and the student's reasons for selecting it. A second section summarizes the article's conclusions and implications. The third and fourth sections present the student's own recommendations, covering the governor's broader responsibilities and specific alternative funding approaches. A references section closes the paper in APA format.
Introduction
The main idea of the article by Glowicki (2017) is that the role Kentucky Governor Bevin faced as he tried to bring the state budget under control was a lose-lose situation. Glowicki's point is that Kentucky could not afford to cut its justice system budget any further, as cuts had already been made so many times in the past. The article is entirely on topic and to the point.
There are two reasons this article was chosen for analysis. First, in 2017, Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin was faced with the task of reducing the state budget and 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 the state and for students of criminal justice administration. Second, budgeting is a critical issue — understanding how important it is to both the state and the justice system, and how the two must work together to overcome challenges like this one, is essential for anyone working in the field.
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." Yet, as Glowicki (2017) also reports, such cuts had already been made so many times in Kentucky that there was essentially nothing left to cut. Any further reductions would gut the justice system and make it impossible for prosecutors to perform their duties. The implication Glowicki makes is that the governor needed to find another way to reduce the state budget or increase state revenue. Cutting the budget of the justice system should have been a non-starter, as it would mean that attorneys would lose a third of their staff and prosecutors' offices would be severely undercut. In short, the justice system could not be served by such cuts.
My Conclusions and Recommendations
Glowicki (2017) is correct: politicians need to understand that the criminal justice system existed before they came to office and will exist long after they are gone. They are there to serve the people, and that means making sure the system is supported — not harmed. 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, helping to ensure that those 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 — and they should be striving to make that impact rather than working against the system to fulfill an arbitrary political mandate imposed 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, in many cases, an increase in crime rates. It is therefore essential that state governors ensure the criminal justice system is given a strong budget. By doing so, they can help ensure the safety of their citizens and the delivery of justice.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.