Minor Computer Flaw Frees State Prisoners

Ruvim writes "A Michigan State audit shows a software glitch let some prisoners get out early. From the article: 'The audit report shows errors in the release dates of 23 prisoners between October 2003 and March 2005. Some were let out early, while others were let out late... A flaw in computer programming caused State jails to release 8 prisoners anywhere from 39-161 days early, prisoners who were doing time for everything from embezzlement and drugs to bad check writing.'"

Comments

Gracious Me!

[geomon]

A whole 39 days early? Shit! They ought to hunt that bastard down and horsewhip them.

I guess I don't see the 'crisis' in this other than these people were low-level, non-violent offenders. If a software glitch had let a Ted Bundy out for another killing spree, I would probably be more concerned.

Fact is, we have WAAAAAY too many people in jail as it is. If we were to only charge and incarcerate those who pose a safety risk to the rest of society then you could probably monitor the entire population in half as many facilities with 1/3 of the correctional officers we have today.

The US incarcerates people largely to punish them for stuff they do to themselves. If someone is strung out on meth or heroin, they are only a problem to me if they steal something to support their habit. Considering the fact that theft is already a crime, I can't see how locking up people who are casual users and functioning addicts helps society at all.

These prison systems are getting too complex, too expensive, and are locking too many people away for "their own good".

Rep. Rick Jones: " 8 people is too many. I understand the department found another 15, that's too many, even 1 is too many."

Fuck that. Notice he shed no tears for the few that were held too long? I'm glad some of them got out early. The only sad thing in this story is that somebody got held longer than they should have.

Re:Gracious Me!

[Seumas]

The US incarcerates people largely to punish them for stuff they do to themselves. If someone is strung out on meth or heroin, they are only a problem to me if they steal something to support their habit. Considering the fact that theft is already a crime, I can't see how locking up people who are casual users and functioning addicts helps society at all.

These prison systems are getting too complex, too expensive, and are locking too many people away for "their own good".

It's essentially the Catholic Justice System. You're locked away not so much because of offenses you commit that harm other people, but for offenses that upset god and baby jesus and mother mary and all that jazz. How else do you explain laws intended to punish 18 year olds having sex with same-sex 15 year olds with 17 years in prison, but punish 18 year olds having sex with female 15 year olds with 15 months in prison? It's all about morality and just because something is considered "immoral" by many doesn't make it harmful to anyone.

Re:Gracious Me!

[geomon]

It's essentially the Catholic Justice System.

I think the Baptists would take exception at your excluding them from this party. They like controlling people too.

You're locked away not so much because of offenses you commit that harm other people, but for offenses that upset god and baby jesus and mother mary and all that jazz.

And it is only getting worse. Every year some dumbass politician screws the whole world up with just six simple words: "There ought to be a law!"

How else do you explain laws intended to punish 18 year olds having sex with same-sex 15 year olds with 17 years in prison, but punish 18 year olds having sex with female 15 year olds with 15 months in prison?

You can't. Neither can you rationalize incarcerating a person who does drugs, keeps their job, pays their taxes, and doesn't commit any other criminal offense. They *try* to rationalize it by claiming that "they need treatment" as though the criminal justice system is any substitute for medical therapy.

It's all about morality and just because something is considered "immoral" by many doesn't make it harmful to anyone.

Aye. That about sums it up.

Re:Gracious Me!

[Jesus_666]

There' one flaw in that argument: If $DRUG was legal, people wouldn't need to give their money to some shady dealer who in turn gives his money to a drug syndicate. The FDA would make sure that there are certain standards it has to meet and the legal system would make sure that the huge corporations owning the market (if $DRUG === "marijuana" that would most probably be the tobacco companies) would stay mostly clean. Shady people would make less money because they couldn't compete with the mass production that the big corporations would do - and the prices associated with it. Especially if production and/or sale are coupled to strong regulation.

Yes, most drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) are detrimental to one's time/revenue ratio, which is a reason to legislate against them. But "if people buy this stuff the money goes to bad people" is not, because the money only goes to bad people because no one else can sell the stuff.

Re:Gracious Me!

[Chrononium]

Wow. That statement wasn't laced with intolerance. Naw. I mean, heck, you could even be a Chinese army official carrying out the extermination of Tibetans because well ... their system is religious and therefore silly. Why would anyone want religion when you can offer progress?

Law is an external deposit of morality. Your idea of deciding if something is immoral is testing to see if it hurts someone. You want law to minimize suffering. You think suffering is a Bad thing (absolute moral qualifier). There are a lot of people who think morality is different. You not only look down upon their beliefs, but also think that your way is better. That your version of morality is better. Sounds like you're the same type of person as those other people ... you care passionately about how to determine good from bad. Law is where society as a whole comes together and lays down the morality of the majority because nearly all functioning human beings care deeply about morality.

To speak more specifically on the idea of incarcerating adults (18 year olds) who have sex with minors (less than 18 years old), you could always consider the utilitarian argument. For the most part, 18 year olds have a chance at economic freedom, the ability to support themselves independent of their parents -- a productive member of a capitalist society. A minor does not necessarily have that same freedom (because of other laws, like child labor laws). That restriction is important because it sends a clear signal to those tempted to drop out of school that there will be barriers (and also theoretically involves the parents, implying a certain strength of the family). Why would you drop out of school? Because you're pregnant or because you're suffering from the emotional and psychological issues generated from considering and implementing abortion. High school drop outs usually are a liability to society, unable to produce much with their lives (they influence limited amounts of happiness). That family having to support their child for a longer period of time will spend less money. Furthermore, this effects the amount of retirement funds allocated to the family and to the child. A high school graduate will not be able to put in as much into the social security system as a college graduate. This stresses an already stressed (perhaps even broken) system. This law is in support of family. And that isn't just a moral statement, but a measurable economic factor as well. Japan is beginning to show signs of familial breakdown and their health system is having to support more people in their old-age. Same for Europe.

Don't assume the problem is so small.

Re:Released prisoners late?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having had a "friend" involved in the corrections system I find the article missing some key information. Most states hand out time with both a minimum and a maximum sentence. So, far example, one might get a 3 1/2 to 7 year sentence. This means you may get out on parole after 3 1/2 years but if they don't want to let you go they can keep you 7 years. Also, sometimes one could get time taken off the minimum sentence for participating in various "programs" or for "good behaviour" but the max usually stays where it started. So, what I want to know is this: Did they keep them earlier/later than their minimum sentence or maximum sentence? If one got kept later than their minimum sentence, there is no legal recourse because technically they can keep you to the max. If they let you out before your minimum sentence then they really screwed up in letting you out earlier. If they let you out later then your maximum sentence then they really screwed up and could face a lawsuit. Anything in the middle would just suck for one side, but not be a legal issue.