The Difficulty in Managing Public Sector Expenses

August 11, 2010

In these challenging times, public sector financial management at all levels of government is often criticized for its inability to control costs and "stay within budget." It is indeed a constant challenge to set and not exceed realistic spending targets. One event, possibly two, will occur in Westmoreland County that will be impossible to plan for financially: the Jennifer Daugherty murder trial will be a death penalty case, and District Attorney John Peck may also seek the death penalty in the Kevin Murphy murder trial.

This article is not a philosophical argument for or against the death penalty; rather, it is a description of how difficult it is to manage public sector expenses. Here, in our county, as in counties across this nation, we have seen a tremendous growth in our justice system. As our litigious nature has grown, we've seen a growth in the number of judges and court-related personnel. As the public has demanded more and stricter laws, we've seen an explosion in the number of prosecutors, public defenders, probation officers, and, of course, prisons.

In the last forty years programs have been created to deal with criminal offenders that never existed before. Many of these are in place in an attempt to control costs. But nothing will throw a budget out of whack quicker than a death penalty case. In the Daugherty case, with six defendants, only one will have the services of our Public Defender's office. The others, in order to avoid any conflict of interest, will each have two, not one, court-appointed attorneys. If it were a murder trial without possibility of the death penalty, each defendant would only be assigned one court-appointed attorney.

In Westmoreland County, the hourly pay rate that we use for court-appointed lawyers is extremely low at $45. In a sense, these lawyers are partially doing community service, but the amount that we budget annually ($600,000 in 2010) is based on a normal year's volume of court-appointed activity, and does not account for one, or possibly two, death penalty cases. The volume of "billable" hours for the court-appointed defense lawyers will likely be very high due to the nature of this case. Also, overtime expenses for the District Attorney's staff will likely be much higher than normal.

And there are many other costs that county taxpayers must absorb. Both sides will likely use "expert" witnesses to support their respective cases. Already, one defendant has requested a change of venue for his part of the trial. Whether jurors are sequestered because of the high level of publicity, or they are brought here from another county, there will be an expense that was not planned for by anyone. The sheriff, who is responsible for courtroom security and the transporting of all prisoners, will likely have sizable expenses not in his normal budget.

While we use the past to plan for the future, and we can track the number of murder trials likely to occur each year in our county, no one can plan for a death penalty case and set realistic budgets on an ongoing basis. We do know that the expenses of a death penalty case will be higher than a non-death penalty case, but to be able to cover these unexpected public expenses, we must maintain a budget surplus. While it is difficult to maintain a surplus in these challenging times, we do so because we face a variety of unplanned obstacles. In this case, we do it so that justice can be served.

The point of this article is to recognize that as society demands stricter laws and more severe punishments, there is, and always will be, an associated public expense. There is so much discussion about reducing the cost of government, yet there seems to be, at times, a disconnect between the public, legislative bodies that pass laws, and the reality that there are these associated costs with every new demand. It's sometimes difficult to recognize those increased costs because they evolve over time. I'm certain we cannot turn back the clocks to a simpler, less costly society. But as we move forward, everyone must understand that there are expenses incurred at some level of government for each new law that is passed and then enforced. And the more severe the punishment (i.e. the death penalty and long mandatory sentences), the greater the cost will be for the public to bear.

Also See:
Past Politics Articles: 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999