Crime Statistics: Dangerous And Expensive Essay Example

Crime in our nation is a serious problem today. Not only is criminal activity dangerous for the American people but it is expensive as well. The harshest of crimes being homicide, in 2008 it was reported that there were 15,672 murders committed compared to the year 2009 which 14,558 murders took place. According to Fox News studies there is an estimated cost of $17 million of tax payers’ money going into investigating and solving a murder.

The study looks at victim cost, the cost of arrest and adjudication, and the cost of incarceration, trials, and investigators (DeLisi, 2010). According to Forbes. com New York prisoners cost an estimated $42,202 a year to keep one prisoner behind bars, according to a 2007 study by Pew’s Center on the States. At that rate, as there are approximately 62,620 people in New York prisons, New York spends some $2. 6 billion each year on prisoners. California, for example, spent $8. 795 billion locking up prisoners in 2007, according to a separate Pew report.

By way of comparison, for every dollar California spends on higher education, it spends 83 cents on corrections. That should strike lawmakers as an imbalance in priorities. To pay for this the government makes citizens pay heavy taxes. The average household in the US will pay a total of 14. 2% in federal taxes. This average household would have paid 0. 8 percent of its income in corporate taxes (through the stocks it owned), 0. 9 percent in gas and other federal excise taxes, and 9. percent in payroll taxes (Leonhardt, 2010). This representation of the average amount of taxes the average household pays accurately portrays the impact of the policy on households in general. I do believe that the City of Centervale tax payers are very disturbed by the amount of taxes we pay to upkeep our prison systems. I think that it would be best to implement prisoners to have more responsibilities. By this I mean more work-related initiatives to work and pay for things they may need while incarcerated.

In looking at all the statistics on prisoners and the prison system we must understand central tendency and dispersion. Central tendency is a measure that tells us the center of distribution. It is usually measured in (mean, median, or mode). The dispersion is distribution of values around a center value. Range is the most common used way to measure dispersion. American people have no choice to pay the raising tax prices. As I would initiate that prisoner’s pay any way they can for their own incarceration.

References

  1. DeLisi, Matt. Study Estimates Average Cost of Murder at over $17M. 14 October 2010. Retrieved on February 6, 2011 from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/14/study-average-cost-murder-tops-million/
  2. Freedman, Daniel. The Wealthy Should Pay for Prison. 13 March 2009. Retrieved on February 6, 2010 from http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/13/jail-prison-rich-taxes-opinions-contributors-madoff.html
  3. Leonhardt, David. Yes, 47% of Households owe no Taxes. Look Closer. 13 Apri 2010. Retrieved on February 6, 2011 from  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

Does Hoover Deserve Blame Of Depression?

“Economic depression cannot be cured by legislative action or executive pronouncement. Economic wounds must be healed by the action of the cells of the economic body – the producers and consumers themselves. ” Herbert Hoover, who dictated this quote during the largest era of turmoil in American history, is given a great deal of blame for the events that occurred during the Great Depression. Many try to blame the entire Great Depression on President Herbert Hoover simply because he held office during the collapse of the stock market and the worsening of the economic tragedies.

However, underlying issues during the previous Presidencies of Harding and Coolidge are hidden due to the fact that Hoover is given too much of the blame. Although it is unjust to distribute all of the faults onto Hoover’s administration, his policies and actions while in office do warrant him some criticism. In the genuine economic policy known as laissez-faire, Hoover allowed many economic markets to operate freely without government regulation. Monopolies and trusts were allowed to form, leading to a tremendous inequality between the distribution of wealth from the rich and poor across America.

Indeed, some still insist that Hoover did do something about the Depression but it was too little too late. The worst part about the Depression was the Federal Reserve Board, meant to dispose of the let alone policy of Hoover, but in reality, doing absolutely nothing about it. One thing Hoover attempted to do was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Unfortunately, this was the worst thing he could have done. Raising the tariff was a ridiculous approach for this time, as all attempts to cure society should have been to lower prices.

Thus, the Depression was not Hoover’s fault because he did nothing, but rather because he did the wrong things in order to aid the economy at the time. Hoover’s legacy should not be one of disgust but should be one of misfortune. Although his policies and actions were clearly misguided, he had good intentions and sincerely tried to resurrect the American way of life. Hoover, who is now seen as disregarding the economic problem as a whole, should be seen as trying to fix the problem, but doing the wrong things in order to do so.

Nurse-to-Patient Ratios

In the article, Coffman, Seago, and Spetz (2002) questioned that mandating minimum nurse-to-patient ratios could eventually help to improve outcomes and conditions of both nurses and patients in acute care hospitals in California. They found that mandatory ratios could create opportunity costs that were not easily measured and that might outweigh their benefits. They also suggested that policymakers should consider other strategies or approaches to address nurse’ concerns on hospital staffing and enhance their job satisfaction and retention in hospital facilities.

The authors showed that proponents of Assembly Bill 394 emphasized its potential to improve the quality of care provided to patients and reduce the turnover in nursing staff in California hospitals, but it also created more problems in hospitals. The potential benefits of Assembly Bill included helping to alleviate the nursing shortage, improve working conditions, and attract more young persons to nursing.

In the meantime, the authors also reported that many California hospitals and their units were not in compliance with proposed minimum nurse-to-patient ratios. The minimum nurse-to-patient ratios increased hospital expenditures. Hiring registry and traveling nurses and increasing LVN staffing would increase hospital expenditures and lower quality of patients’ care. Because of mandatory ratios, hospitals were most likely to reduce other personal and increase the amount of nonnursing work performed by Registered Nurses.

Mandating minimum nurse-to-patient ratios also discouraged innovation in the development of other types of health professionals by hospitals and in the amounts and combinations of labor and capital. The authors concluded that the cost of mandatory ratios outweighed the benefits, so the policymakers should explore other approaches instead of simply mandating minimum nurse-to-patient ratios. As one of the nurses, of course I support and desperately want to mandate minimum nurse-to-patient ratios.

Minimum ratios definitely help to reduce nurses’ burnout and increase our job satisfaction, but mandatory ratios don’t guarantee improved quality of patient care or better outcome for patients, since patient outcomes depend not only on the nurses, but also on other factors such as physicians, healing environment, severity of patients’ illnesses, etc. To promote the best quality of nursing care, maintaining adequate and more realistic nurse-to-patient ratios should be necessary.

During my nursing management clinical rotations, I notice that a nurse usually needs to take care of 37 to 42 patients who are mentally retarded and most of them also have different levels of psychological illnesses at the same time. It is extremely challenging and stressful for individual nurse who works in this facility. Nurses also believe that they are not able to provide basic nursing care to patients, and it is unsafe for patients, too.

To promote adequate nurse-to-patient ratios, facilities should adopt Patient Classification System which is a tool to determine the patient nursing care needs. Each nurse is required to fill out this document when he/she provides nursing care for this patient. Charge nurses can use this tool to assign how many patients to individual nurse. In conclusion, it is more effective in solving under-staffing in nursing than mandating nurse-to-patient ratios.

Reference

Coffman, J. M., Seago, J. A., & Spetz, J. (2002). Minimum nurse-to-patient ratios in acute care hospitals in California. Health Affairs, 21(5), 53-64. Retrieved from http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/21/5/53.full.html

error: Content is protected !!