Felony Offenders - Should Tax Payers Be Liable for Paying Their Healthcare Costs - Thesis Example

?Running Head: Felony Offenders Felony Offenders- Should Tax Payers be Liable for paying their Healthcare Costs of the of the Institution] [Name of the Professor] [Course] TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1.Introduction 3 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 Research Aim 4 1.3 Research Objectives 4 1.4 Research Questions 4 1.5 Rationale for the Research Topic 5 1.6 Scope of the Research Topic 6 1.7: Limitations of the Research Topic 6 1.8: Summary 7 Chapter 2.0 Literature Review 8 2.1 Introduction 8 2.2 Felony Offenders and Tax Payers 8 2.3 Summary 12 Chapter 3.0 Research Methodology 13 3.1 Introduction 13 3.2 Research Philosophy 13 3.3 Research Approach 13 3.4 Data Collection Methods 14 3.5 Data Analysis Methods 14 3.6 Ethical Considerations 14 3.7. Strengths and Limitations of the Methodology 15 3.8: Summary 15 References 16 CHAPTER-1: INTRODUCTION 1.1: Introduction Every state and country has its own tax structure where individuals and organizations are liable to pay certain taxes. It is important to pay taxes on time as it acts as a legal obligation in most cases. However, societies comprise of people working hard and paying their taxes and also people, indulged in illegal and criminal activities leading to jail term and thus not paying taxes to the government. However, the government spends good amount of money on people being incarcerated. The number of people serving jail sentences has increased a lot in last few years and so has the government’s expenditure (Bureau of Justice Statistics (2009). Everyone in the country is paying attention to what things cost in order to have an idea over their income and expenditure. At the same time, the government is responsible and answerable for the use of public money being collected in the form of wide arrays of taxes. The research proposes to investigate whether tax payers should be liable for paying the healthcare costs of felony offenders or not. Felony is a serious crime in the common law countries and violation of laws often lead of incarceration and legal actions. However, the government spends good amount of money taking corrective actions on offenders that often affect the overall government expenditure. With the rise in the number of offenders and influx of people in jails, the government expenditure has increased a lot and in recent years emerged as one of the high expenditures for the government after medical aids (Bureau of Justice Statistics (2009). This leads to a logical question where it is important to assess and examine whether tax payers should be liable to pay the healthcare costs of felony offenders or not as the government has been using the tax money on taking corrective measures. For this purpose, the researcher has formulated the research aim, objectives and questions stated in the following discussion. 1.2: Research Aim The research will aim to investigate whether tax payers are liable for paying the healthcare costs of felony offenders or not. At the same time, the research will also aim to examine the pros and cons of sustaining the healthcare costs of felony offenders. For this purpose, few research objectives have been designed stated as follow: 1.3: Research Objectives The research objectives have been formulated to support the research aim. The research objectives are as follow: To investigate whether tax payers are liable to pay the healthcare costs of felony offenders To examine the pros and cons of paying the healthcare costs of felony offenders To assess and analyze how paying healthcare costs of felony offenders affect the economic structure of the country To underpin the advantages and disadvantages of paying healthcare costs for felony offenders To examine the perspective of tax payers on paying healthcare costs of felony offenders 1.4: Research Questions The researcher also formulated few research questions to support the research objectives. The research questions are as follow: 1. Are tax payers liable to pay for the healthcare costs of felony offenders? 2. Is it important to pay for the healthcare costs of felony offenders? 3. Do paying healthcare costs of felony offenders affect the government expenditure? 1.5: Rationale for the Research Topic Everyone in the society is paying attention to what things cost especially after the financial crisis and dip in the disposable income of people mainly due to high interest rates and unemployment. Policy makers always try to design policies that will help in the smooth running of the economy but certain policies affect the entire nation. Decades of increased incarceration and rise in the correction costs has been researched by many in last few years. In last few years, there has been an increase in the numbers of prisoners. This has caused an added burden on taxpayers as States’ correction tools use money that has been collected by the tax payers. Although, the rise in numbers is alarming but what is more interesting is the rise in the expenditures for correcting measures. Every state has fixed financial obligations that may exceed the overall allotted limit (Lynch, 2001) However, the real worry is in the form of spending of money that is collected by tax payers. These tax payers are general individuals and organizations working hard to sustain themselves and their family by fulfilling their basic needs and demands. However, felony offenders are jailed for a period of time where they are supposed to act as per the legal requirements in order to behave like a normal human being. In this period of time, the government spends a lot on corrective measures and their health. It becomes the responsibility of the government to take care of the health needs of incarcerated individuals. With a rise in the government expenditure, the common man is burdened with the responsibility of taking care of families and personal needs along with having little expectations with the government for individual and social welfare considering the fact that felony offenders are getting benefitted by the amount being paid by them in the form of taxes. The rationale for the research lies in investigating and examining the impact of tax incomes being used for felony offenders’ healthcare. 1.6: Scope of the Research Topic As stated before the research will aim to investigate whether tax payers are liable for paying the healthcare costs of felony offenders or not, it offers a broadened scope to underpin the research subject. Firstly, tax system is related to the economic structure of nations and impacts the lives of individuals in a significant manner. Secondly, felony offenders are not covered under medical aid that suggests that states and the government is responsible to take care of their health needs and requirements but this affect the overall government expenditure. So, it can be said that the scope of the research topic is pretty broad especially covering large issues affecting the common man and the government. At the same time, the research is associated with the macro issue affecting the masses. So, it can be assumed that the research topic is not only concerned with the health science but also involves economic pros and cons while taking care of healthcare needs of felony offenders. The research topic thus will underpin the relationship between health cost and economic structure of an economy along with its influence on the lives of millions of tax payers. The next part of the discussion presents an understanding over the limitations of the research. 1.7: Limitations of the Research Topic As the research topic will examine whether tax payers be liable for paying the healthcare costs of felony offenders; it needs to be understood that not every tax payer is aware on the government expenditure. Moreover, different States in the US have different ways of paying for the healthcare of felony offenders. For example; the in Dallas and Texas, felony offenders are asked to co-pay their healthcare expenditure as not many healthcare providers are willing to offer competitive rates for felony offenders’ healthcare bills. The research will be limited in the sense that it will not be able to underpin the expenditure of every State on felony offenders’ healthcare and also the views and opinions of tax payers on the use of their money. 1.8: Summary The chapter presented an understanding over the research topic along with defining the rationale and scope of the research. The chapter also stated the purposed aim, objectives and questions pertaining to the research topic that will help in conducting the research in a systematic manner. Overall, the chapter showcased an understanding over the research topic that will help in carrying forward the discussion in the following chapters. The next chapter presents an understanding and critical analysis of the literature pertaining to the research topic. CHAPTER-2: LITEARTURE REVIEW 2.1: Introduction The chapter presents an understanding over the use of tax payers’ money in paying the healthcare costs of felony offenders along with examining its pros and cons in a critical manner. The chapter will also help in ascertaining key research issues that can be further assessed using secondary research analysis. 2.2: Felony Offenders and Tax Payers As per the report publish by Pew Center on the States (2011), it was found that there is no significant improvement in the overall performance of many corrections systems in different States of the United States. It was also found that four out of 10 offenders return to jail within 3-4 years of their release. This phenomenon is not only hurting the government but also individuals in a significant manner. As per Peng (2009), felony offenders serving their jail sentences do not indulge in any productive activity through which they can pay their taxes especially if they are incarcerated for a long period of time. In such a case, the government is liable to take care of their costs. However, the government incurs costs by using the money that is paid by millions of tax payers. This means that indirectly tax payers share the burden of taking care of the costs of felony offenders. As per the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2009), the prison population is growing at a rapid pace putting more pressure on the government to take care of their needs. However, mainly because of the lack of sources and resources, managing healthcare and other needs of felony offenders often becomes a cumbersome task. As per the research conducted by Pew Center on the States (2011), it was found that felony offenders did not get much support in terms of getting work resulting in the waste of abilities and capabilities and getting dependent on the government. As per the report of Kyckelhahn (2012), it was found that there has been a rise in total state corrections expenditures rising from $15 billion to $53 billion within the time period of fifteen years. It was also found that almost every State is spending an approx $43 billion on corrections expenditures. State correction expenditures include cost of managing prisons, cost of managing prisoners, cost of food and healthcare and cost of maintaining the entire infrastructure. With the rise in the numbers of jail inmates, there has been a rise in the correction expenditures that has to be supported by the Federal Government. West, et al (2009) stated that initially every State in the United States enacted mandatory sentencing policies for various crimes. The sentencing policies are still dependent on the severity of the crime and based on that sentence is announced that has to be served by the guilty parties. As per the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2009), the jail population grew at an astonishing rate of 380% from 1980 to 2008 and in between the entire population grew at the rate of 33%. This clearly shows that the growth in the number of jailed people is 10 times more than the overall population growth in the United States. With rise in the numbers of incarcerated people, the government faced the burden and responsibility to bear their expenses along with managing them. Petersilia (2003) stated that incarcerated individuals often act as a burden for the government and societies. Moreover, societies are burdened with the responsibility of paying their taxes that are further used for the management of felony offenders. This can be considered as an irony considering the fact that the working population is subjected to various taxes while the non-working felony offenders are subjected to use the benefits derived from the money of tax payers. Kyckelhahn (2012) believed that in spite of increasing the costs of corrections activities, the government can plan something for the taxpayers in order to benefit them and society rather than using their money to better the lives of felony offenders. Lynch, et al (2001) stated that the American society is too lenient with criminals who are extremely violent. In order to eradicate this issue, it is important to use tougher legislations and policies that will deter criminals along with marking a reduction in the overall crime rates. This will also help in curtaining the overall corrections costs that come at the cost of taxpayers’ money. Visher (2003) contradicted the views of Lynch by stating that there are a number of categories for criminals based on the severity of the crime. There are cases where offenders are subjected to incarceration for few days on the grounds of breaking laws and committing crimes. These felony offenders also populate jails and thus acting as a burden for the government and tax payers. Listwan, et al (2006) believed that despite a decrease in the crime rates, there has been an increase in the numbers of incarcerated people. As per the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2009), it was found that 60.9% of prisoners are supported by taxpayers in different States or Federal facilities. This shows that the overall burden on taxpayers is immense considering the rise in the numbers of felony offenders being incarcerated. The most interesting fact is the reduction in crimes but increase in the numbers of jail inmates and the government is not sure on how to react in such a position. Steurer, Smith (2003) believed that roughly $30,000 is spent on every prisoner per year and American taxpayers pay $70 billion to confine and care for the prisoners. This situation cannot be considered as logical as taxpayers are subjected to pay their taxes in the hope of getting substantial benefits from the government by initiating changes leading to the betterment in the society. However, when the tax money is paid for healthcare and other issues of felony offenders, there is a sense of inequity among tax payers that can be considered is logical and true enough in the social environment. With few people getting benefitted at the cost of others’ money and few becoming a target source to fund their needs, the entire situation seems to be questionable on the grounds of equity. As per the research conducted by CLASP (2003), it was found that funding for corrections departments has increased a lot in last decade. In order to defray the expenses related to house arrests and jail sentences; the government requires offenders to pay a portion of their cost related to healthcare. In Ohio, offenders are subjected to pay $5 per day to meet their daily expenses while in Alaska, offenders are supposed to pay $14 per day. This clearly shows that there is a lack of planning from the government side as different states have different action plans to meet rising costs being used for correction measures. As per Newman (2007), there are three kinds of crimes, felonies, misdemeanors and infractions. Felonies are considered as a serious crime that can cause maximum sentence in the jail. At the same time, with the introduction of three strikes law in many States of the US; individuals committing serious crimes for the third time will be subjected to life imprisonment. The move is supposed to save good amount of money being spent on felony offenders as there will be limited numbers of offenders requiring healthcare benefits and other useful amenities. On the other hand, Steurer, Smith (2003) believed that even States are implementing third strikes law; there has been a rise in the numbers of jailed individuals though the numbers of criminal activities have reduced drastically. The point is to save the money of tax payers by imposing certain liabilities on offenders in terms of co-paying their healthcare costs. This will help in reducing the burden from tax payers along with creating a balance in the system that will help in saving good amount of money that can be used for other purposes. There is no doubt that the current system of mass incarceration is not only costly by dysfunctional causing great economic worries and threats along with evoking the sense of inequality among tax payers on the grounds of inappropriate use of their taxable money. Overall, it can be said that a functional and less costly approach is required to pay for the healthcare costs of felony offenders. 2.3: Summary The chapter presented an insight over the liability of tax payers in terms of paying for the healthcare and other expenses of felony offenders in an indirect manner. It was found that the government is exercising its rights to tax the income of working population along with using that money to maintain the costs requirements of incarcerated individuals. In last few decades, the numbers of incarcerated individuals have increased a lot compared to the total population of the country that has not grown much. In this context, the taxpayers are becoming liable to pay for the expenses of felony offenders. Even though, the government is trying hard to lessen the number of felony offenders but overall, the increase in the corrections costs is worrisome not only for the nation but for every individual paying taxes and expecting the government to do something substantial for the society, individuals and families rather for criminals and offenders. The next chapter presents a brief understanding of the purposed research methodology that will be used to conduct the research in a systematic way. CHAPTER-3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1: Introduction The chapter highlights different elements of the mythology that will help in collecting and analyzing data in a systematic manner. The chapter discusses preferred research philosophy, research approach, data collection methods, data analysis method, ethical issues and strengths and limitations of the proposed methodology along with justifying the selection and preference in a brief and logical way. 3.2: Research Philosophy Saunders, et al (2007) believed that philosophy is based on the beliefs and perceptions of individuals and in terms of research; philosophy defines the mindset of researchers while conducting a particular research. Research philosophy has been classified as positivism and anti-positivism philosophy. Positivism philosophy is based on general rules and regulations based on the fact that social reality already exists while anti-positivism philosophy is based on the fact that social realities need to be examined and analyzed based on personal observations and analysis. The researcher will use positivism research philosophy considering the fact that tax money is used for wide arrays of expenditures and felony offenders’ healthcare expenditures are one of them. This social reality will be examined based on the availability of facts and information following research rules and general laws. 3.3: Research Approach Saunders, et al (2007) classified research approach as inductive and deductive approach. Inductive approach is based on personal observations and analysis starting from specific analysis to general conclusions while the deductive approach is based on pre determined rules and regulations that starts from general ideas and leads to specific conclusions. The researcher will prefer deductive approach as it will help in reaching to specific conclusions. 3.4: Data Collection Methods Saunders, et al (2007) believed that data can be collected through primary and secondary research. Primary data are raw and first hand data that can be collected through interviews, surveys and observational and focus group studies. On the other hand, secondary data is already available data that can be collected through academic books, journals and internet. The researcher will collect secondary data from past conducted researches on the current research topic along with referring to academic books, appropriate journals and internet sources. The researcher will not use primary data as there is very little scope for contacting the government officials who can share their views on the use of tax payers’ money on felony offenders’ healthcare needs. Thus, the researcher will limit his study to secondary research that will further offer validity and reliability considering the fact that majority of information is published and accepted in the society. 3.5: Data Analysis Methods Data can be analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively as per the nature and scope of the study. The researcher will use qualitative analysis method to analyze collected information as there is very little scope for quantitative analysis and the use of statistical tools. This will help in theoretical explanation of the research issue. 3.6: Ethical Considerations Blackburn (2001) stated that ethics are generally accepted moral principles often helping in being honest and transparent. The researcher will try to be honest in his approach while conducting the research. Moreover, no information will be falsified or manipulated and high degree of transparency will be exhibited to make the research ethical and transparent in terms of stating outcomes and results. 3.7: Strengths and Limitations of the Methodology The major strength of the methodology is in the form of careful selection of each element of the methodology complementing each other. On the other hand, the major limitations can be found in data collection methods being dependent on the secondary research. With little scope of conducting primary research, the research will be limited to secondary data and analysis that will further not add any significant to the existing research but may offer different perspective and insight that may broadened the research scope. 3.8: Summary The chapter discussed key elements of the methodology along with justifying the overall selection of each element. The use of positivism research philosophy and deductive research approach will support the secondary research in a logical way. Overall, the researcher has chosen a balanced methodology that will help in ascertaining key findings pertaining to the research topic. References Blackburn, S. (2001). Being good: A short introduction to ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press Bureau of Justice Statistics (2009). Prisoners at year end. US Department of Justice. CLASP (2003). Barred from jobs: Ex-offenders thwarted in attempts to earn a living. Every Door Closed Fact Sheet Series, No. 2 of 8. Gillian, T., Visher, C., Kachnowski, V., & Travis, J. (2003). A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Ohio. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.9 Kyckelhahn. T (2012) State Corrections Expenditures, FY 1982-2010. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/scefy8210.pdf Listwan, S. J., Cullen, F. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2006). How to Prevent Prisoner Re-Entry Programs from Failing: Insights from Evidence-Based Corrections. Federal Probation, 70, 3, 19. Lynch, J. P., (2001). Prisoner reentry in perspective. Washington, D.C: Urban Institute Newman. N (2007) “Ex-Prisoner Reentry and Reintegration.” Progressive States Network. Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Studies in crime and public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peng. J (2009), State and Local Pension Fund Management. New York: CRC Press Steurer, S. J., Smith, L. G (2003). Correctional Education Association (U.S.), & Management & Training Corporation. Education reduces crime: Three-state recidivism study: executive summary. Lanham, MD: Correctional Education Association Saunders, M, Thornhill, M, Lewis, P (2007). Research Methods for Business Students. Prentice Hall The Pew Center on the States (2011). The State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons. Retrieved from http://www.pewstates.org/ Visher, C. (2003). A portrait of prisoner reentry in Illinois. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; West, H.C., Sabol, W., & Cooper. M. (2009). Prisoners in 2008. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/po8.pdf 7 Read More

 

Read More