When people are being killed by the people charged to protect them, there exists a large problem in a country as great as this one’s justice system. When said justice system is accused of skewed against a great fraction of the population, something needs to change. On the topic of criminal justice reform, both Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul decided that change is necessary. Rand Paul states that the cause of the militarization of police stations across the country is big government. Hillary Clinton, however, presents the idea that the cause is a lack of trust. Although Rand Paul has good points on government over-involvement and the racial tension that exists between the justice system and people of color, Clinton goes more in depth about the causes—the law not respecting nor being …show more content…
In the argument laid out by Rand Paul, big government’s financial incentives made militarization ideal for departments that had to need for such armament. That threat then led to violent mishandling of tedious situations which led to tension and in some cases, racial targeting. Hillary Clinton, in her speech on criminal justice reform, blamed the suspicion of human nature. Clinton argues that departments became so militarized because they felt mistrusted and disrespected. In turn, however, they disrespected and failed to trust the people they vowed to protect. This tension has led to mass incarceration that has a negative economic impact on communities across the country. Both politicians agree that change needs to happen in order to protect the security of the American people. Clinton’s belief in the cause of the tension being rooted in mistrust between citizen and law enforcement and the tension’s economic impacts makes a better argument than Rand Paul’s argument stating that militarization came about solely due to big government