The Great Recession has a tangible impact on the judicial system, just like on any other public and administrative fields in the country. The courts face significant financial losses due to decrease in budgeting and, as a result, they resorted to such measures as staff reduction, development of new positions taking large volume of responsibility, cutting salaries, and increasing fines and fees.
However, the attempt to restructure the environment has not contributed to improvement of service qualities because previous structures were not oriented on staff and budgeting shortage. As a proof, Hall (2012) argues that lack of personnel has led to serious errors and has restricted the judicial power to take responsibilities for accomplished objectives.
The inevitability of financial recession has also make the courts resort to inconsistent and unconsidered decisions, which were more premised on short-termed strategies, rather than on long-termed action plans. Finally, lack of available resources does not allow judicial institutions to keep people in prisons and therefore, most of them will have to be out.
The above-presented challenges are sophisticated, and they require a consistent and well-though approach to eliminating those. In particular, Badger’s (2012) mentions that the solution to return to private sectors for re-organizing public institutions could become an interim stage of court restructuring because longer implementation of this strategy provide new challenges for financial sustainability of governmental establishments.
Reducing the staff and remaining central positions is not an option as well because there should be a new consistent managerial structure before the shifts are implemented. Moreover, an isolated focus on court systems prevents the budget planners to look at the core of the problem and define the actual root of financial crisis. The collaborative scheme of managing prisons and litigations can be destructed due to the absence of people on certain positions.
The decision to let people out of the prisons seems to be the least possible for the welfare of the community, although it brings in financial solutions to the courts. Once again, Gramlich (2012) recalls the fast-growing rates of violence, crimes, and offences to emphasize that no special measures have bee introduced to explore the cause of such growth.
Instead, the government focuses on any opportunities to reduce financing of imprisonment institutions, leading to even greater crime rates. Therefore, mere reduction of prisoners in California cannot provide any financial benefits to the state in general (Gramlich, 2012). Therefore, these policies could not be regarded as a long-term strategies focused on reducing financial expenditures.
It should also be stressed that the judicial representatives fail to pay attention to the nature and accuracy of accusations imposed on the offenders. Inconsistency of court procedures can also influence the number of sanctioned arrests of people, leading to prison overcrowding.
The emerged criticism of prison system in the United States is predetermined by the trends and patterns in distributing administrative power. To begin with, Gramlich (2012) refers to a narrow-focused approach that the government use to eliminate the influence of the economic recession by introducing only small change to prison structure.
In particular, the construction of new prisons and reconstruction of the old ones require additional costs, which is unacceptable. At the same, meanwhile the construction is held the resources on the incoming prisoners have been run out. Inadequate resources distributions explain the failure of the government to work out efficient alternative strategies for changing the situation.
Another obstacle to reconstruction lies in the excess of supervisor positions in prison, which prevents from establishing a one-direction policy in improving the environment and reengineering the establishment. Gramlich (2012) notes that some aspects of management can be directed from larger establishment, including health care that can be coordinate from beyond.
Apart from the adversities within the court system, the indignation from the citizens aggravates the situation by ordering criminal justice changes to legislation. Cutting the expenditures on the prison rehabilitation has negative consequences for the prison future.
The policy of death punishment has also been reconsidered due to the significant budgeting shortage. Specifically, Williams (2012) observes that the cost on death penalty requires attention because impoverished states are in favor for rethinking the policy of capital punishment.
Certainly, the development of civilized society should exclude the possibility of death penalty. However, nowadays this decision is also financially predetermined (Williams, 2012). At this point, this outcome of the Great Recession is beneficial for the social and economic development.
In order to prevent further erosion of court and judicial system, several recommendations should be introduced. First, enhanced technology and software support can contribute to communication and regulation. Second, improved practices can assist in self-representation of litigants. Third, mental health and substance abuse treatment should be available for people to eliminate psychological problems.
Finally, defense services should also be improved to manage the crime rates. The proposed innovation and reforms are of high importance for the current court system to remain afloat during the Great Recession and introduce changes. In fact, U.S. judicial system should pay attention to innovation and modernization.
References
Badger, E. (2012). Private Prisons Can’t Lock in Savings. The Cost of Punishment. In State and Local Government. K. B. Smith (Ed.). US: CQ Press. pp. 93-94.
Gramlich, J. (2012). California Shrinks its Prisons, but Overcrowding Persists. The Cost of Punishment. In State and Local Government. K. B. Smith (Ed.). US: CQ Press. pp. 95-97.
Hall, D. J. (2012). Reshaping the Face of Justice: The Economic Tsunami Continues. The Cost of Punishment. In State and Local Government. K. B. Smith (Ed.). US: CQ Press. pp. 89-92.
Williams, R. (2012). The Cost of Punishment. In State and Local Government. K. B. Smith (Ed.). US: CQ Press. pp. 99-101.