Politics is an art that is perfected by experience; from its definition good decision making skills come in handy. Politicians are representative of the people be and their decisions are expected to be either reflective of the overall view of the society of be in the interest of the people they represent. These two expectations complicate decision making since they do overlap in most cases and yet the society expects politicians to make decisions that are both for their good and representative of their opinions.
Correctional facilities are infrastructures that play a considerable role in ensuring the security of members of the society (Stojkovic, Kalinich,& Klofas, 2002). Being social institution it is important that correctional facilities be well funded. An assumption in increasing the funds allocated to correctional facilities is that this translates to increase in safety.
On the other hand, money is drawn from taxpayers and such an increase may imply a reduction in allocations to other social institution or an increase in levies and taxes. Considering the areas economy is suffering and taxpayers have boldly claim will not be amused by any move aimed at increasing tax levies; building owners, education stakeholders, people interested in the overall well-being of the tourism industry and politicians are some of the people expected to support a bid to lower the states funding to correctional facilities.
These is mainly due to the effect such a move will have on the amount of tax that building owners will pay, the impact it will have on allocation to higher learning and tourism and the perception of the majority with regards to their security is likely to sway the interest of politicians. Of these groups there are some that may publicly champion for the enactment of a legislation that will reduce the number of inmates. Building owners will definitely benefit from the increase in population that such a move will lead to.
A key factor that must be put into consideration is that owners of low priced buildings may welcome the move while those of highly priced houses whose market segment is characterised by people who are security conscious are likely to resist the move. It should be noted that an increase in funding to correctional facility is beneficial to the education system, tourism industry and the general public due to an increase in security.
Politicians also gain form such a move through the gain of status and the perceived interest in social welfare. Threats & Benefits The justice system is generally made up of law makers, the society and social institutions (Stojkovic, Kalinich, & Klofas, 2002). These are the key stakeholders that are affected by any decision that affect the nature of laws developed. Any decision that affects the society is bound to have its pros and cons and this should be considered before any decision is made.
Lawmakers who in this case are politicians have their reputation to protect and they obviously prefer an ideal solution where the level of security is increased while taxpayers are least affected. Though a reduction in the amount allocated to correctional facilities may develop a good name to the politicians in the eyes of taxpayers, members of the society from poor background who are said to be advocating for more resources to be directed at dealing with ‘the thieves’ may find folly in such a move.
A reduction in the amount allocated to correctional facilities is good news for other social institutions since the surplus can be directed their way, on the contrary increase in the levels of insecurity that is expected with implementation of such legislation could hinder the development of social institutions and industries like tourism and real estate. The society will also be affected by reduction in the level of security that the implementation of such a legalisation could lead to. Insecurity and development are unlike and retrogression may be the path developed by strategies aimed at reduction of the number of inmates.
However, such a strategy will be welcomed by taxpayers who are tired of paying high taxes. Changes in Correction Department Correction is at the heart of the society for it has a direct effect on the levels of perceived and actual security. Business and individuals often prefer locations where their security can be guaranteed thus decisions on security will most likely lead to interest from all groups in the society. Irrespective of the measures that have been developed to ensure security, the area is not doing well economically. Moreover, the taxpayers who are a majority of the electorate are against an increase in tax and levy.
Politicians on the other hand have their responsibility to the society and their reputation to maintain. This is a complex social and economic issue and it will most likely take the direction that most correctional systems have. It is unlikely that laws that will reduce the number of prisoners will be implemented due to the effect that such a move will have on the struggling economy. Pressure from taxpayers and the attention that is required by other social institutions makes it unlikely that allocation to correctional facilities will be increased.
Thus the most likely approach is to maintain if not cutback allocation to correctional facilities and allocate more funds to development of other social institutions. The result will be an increase in the quality of civilian life and a decrease in the quality of life for the convicts which the hardliners and politicians can explain to the electorate as being deterrent to crime. References Stojkovic, S. , Kalinich, D. , & Klofas, J. (2002). Criminal Justice Organizations: Administration and Management. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.Sample Essay of Paperial.com