Data Entry Errors Resulted In Improper Sentences

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Data Entry Errors Resulted In Improper Sentences

Posted by kdawson on Friday October 23, 2009 @02:23AM from the month-here-a-month-there dept.

shrik writes "Slate has a look at the efforts of Emily Owens, in 2005 a Ph.D student in economics at the University of Maryland, who 'came across thousands of inconsistencies and errors in the sentencing recommendations provided to judges' by the Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy. Quoting: 'The sentencing guidelines for judges were based on a work-sheet [PDF] that "graded the severity of a convict's crime and his risk to society", ostensibly to make the rulings meted out more objective in nature. But on carefully studying her data, Owens noticed something wasn't adding up — the system seemed to be producing 1 error in every ten trials. She also realized that this "recommendation system" actually mattered: crimes and criminals analyzed to be quite similar were resulting in systematically different punishments correlated with the work-sheet.' The source of these discrepancies was ultimately found to be a simple, but very significant, PEBKAC: 'More than 90 percent of errors resulted from the person completing the work sheet [usually the DA, but signed off by the defense attorney] entering the figure from a cell next to the correct one. ... The remaining errors came mostly from incorrect choice of criminal statute in calculating the offense score and from a handful of math errors (in operations that were literally as simple as adding two plus two).' Timo Elliott's BI Questions Blog lists the morals of the story."

138 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

isn't that why we have judges by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 02:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Isn't the reason we have judges because no algorithm is perfect?
1. Re:isn't that why we have judges by Deag · 2009-10-23 02:30 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I thought this would be one reason you are paying a defense lawyer, to check this type of stuff.
2. Re:isn't that why we have judges by conureman · 2009-10-23 02:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That one in ten cases is incorrectly sentenced by this system says to me that some of the attorneys are filling these forms out; When the clerks take care of it, they usually get it right.
  
  --
  The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
3. Re:isn't that why we have judges by Fished · 2009-10-23 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  In fairness to the judges, they did reduce each month of recommended additional sentence to just four days. It would be interesting to see whether that was made up of a lot of judges who struck a middle ground between the recommendation and what their "judicial intuition" told them, or 1/10 judges who just didn't care and took whatever the recommendations said.
  
  --
  "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
4. Re:isn't that why we have judges by mark_hill97 · 2009-10-23 02:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A good lawyer is expensive, some criminals can't afford good ones. Instead they end up with overworked public defenders who might have read the case file before going into the court.
5. Re:isn't that why we have judges by ElectricTurtle · 2009-10-23 03:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How many lawyers are modding today? Whoever is modding this down is in denial. I've worked for a law school, a law firm, and independent lawyer, and a state bar association, and I can vouch that the parent is absolutely correct. Lawyers are good at arguments, not book keeping.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
6. Re:isn't that why we have judges by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  Title should be "Data entry errors used as excuse for inappropriate sentences".
7. Re:isn't that why we have judges by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  I thought this would be one reason you are paying a defense lawyer, to check this type of stuff.
  This isn't Phoenix Wright, your defense lawyer should not be required to scream OBJECTION! every three seconds just in case the prosecutor is lying, the prosecutor's witness is lying, or the D.A. is a fucktard who can't add 2+2 without a calculator. And guess what, even if he did, do you think the DA will just say "oh sorry my bad you win the game lol"? No, the DA will stonewall and refuse to admit that he made a mistake, which he'd be required to do in order to fix it.
  Google Houston DNA scandal, and you'll see that all of the above is word for word true and not an exaggeration. Down to courts refusing appeals because the defense attorney failed to use his psychic mind-reading powers to know that an expert witness was lying (oh sorry, making a "mistake" that directly contradicted her lab notes) and failed to object to her testimony.
8. Re:isn't that why we have judges by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2009-10-23 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Error in data entry != error in algorithm.
  In fact, TFS does not even mention any algorithm.
  
  But I can understand your desire to get first post. And you can't bother to read TFS if you want to get first post, can you?
9. Re:isn't that why we have judges by nietsch · 2009-10-23 04:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  And that is exactly what is wrong with your system. If you can afford a better lawyer that gets you a lower or no sentence, that means you have class justice. Maybe not class as in the classical sense with aristocracy etc, but class as in how much money you can get together (by yourself or your direct environment). Home of the free eh? It seems only if you (or your parents) can afford it. (nearly) 1% of the population behind bars is an awful lot and compares very bad with the rest of the world.
  
  --
  This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
10. Re:isn't that why we have judges by sjames · 2009-10-23 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how many times the defense lawyer was a public defender with too many cases to even remember all of the client's names?
11. Re:isn't that why we have judges by camperslo · 2009-10-23 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  That one in ten cases is incorrectly sentenced by this system says to me that some of the attorneys are filling these forms out; When the clerks take care of it, they usually get it right.
  It can be the hired help too. Attorneys are often too good to do any of the actual work themselves.
  I encountered a friend I hadn't seen in a long time who sadly had become a meth addict. But he was well spoken and good looking and managed to get a job in a law office. But he complained about the work, how he'd forget what people said before he got phone messages written down, etc. I saw him one day just before he headed to work and I asked him how long it'd been since he'd slept. FIVE DAYS! He was a walking zombie.
  I once met another person that worked at home doing contract work filling out legal forms, mostly real-estate related. He was doing it while chatting online and watching porn.
  Condition causing strange things to be typed while watching or having sex:
  Lickdicksia
12. Re:isn't that why we have judges by ultranova · 2009-10-23 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Maybe not class as in the classical sense with aristocracy etc, but class as in how much money you can get together (by yourself or your direct environment).
  
  Actually, since old aristocracy was made of those rich enough to be able to afford their own private army, or at the very least a horse and armor at the very bottom, I'd say it's class justice in every sense of the word.
  
  (nearly) 1% of the population behind bars is an awful lot and compares very bad with the rest of the world.
  
  Yes, but making both the rich and the poor equal before law would require for the state to pay for all the expenses of the trial - yes, even for the losing side, since otherwise the rich can afford to try defend themselves even if victory is not certain, while the poor can't - which sounds like socialism, which is evil. Furthermore, to actually pay for this would require taxation, which is stealing and thus also evil.
  Compared to these horrible evils, surely you must agree that locking up or executing innocent or at least undeserving people is far better? Injustice and a huge wrongfully convicted prison population are the price of freedom!
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
13. Re:isn't that why we have judges by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 05:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Public defenders have a bad reputation in the US, but the reality is often different. I saw a tragic case a few years ago where the accused was represented by a public defender. The DA offered a plea deal: 6 months in prison. The guy's family freaked out and hired the best attorney money could buy. Ultimate result? Two years in prison.
  Public defenders are in court all the time. Even though they may not spend the most time on a particular case, they have a lot more experience than private attorneys because they handle a lot more cases. From what I have seen, you can almost always get a better deal if your are represented by a public defender. In the US, well over 90% of cases never go to trial, so the ability to get a good plea deal cannot be understated.
  If I were accused, I would be very comfortable being represented by a public defender.
14. Re:isn't that why we have judges by conureman · 2009-10-23 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  It COULD be the help, but if it is,I don't think the failure rate would be that high. I've been around Law Firms just a bit, and was struck by the amazing competence of the "help" vs: the pathetic fail that is: most people in most fields. Also, by the amazing nincompoopery of MOST of the Bar members I've met. I've only dealt with three reasonably competent lawyers in my life, and people treated them like Clarence Darrow for being merely competent. YMMV.
  
  --
  The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
15. Re:isn't that why we have judges by DaveGod · 2009-10-23 06:25 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I work as an accountant with several lawyers as clients, and I can also vouch that lawyers are no good at bookkeeping but are good at arguing.
  Incidentally, someone made a joke about Excel but actually computerised systems are quite handy for having built-in controls such as exception reports (sanity checks) and so on. Most importantly, the computer always bothers to actually perform the checks.
  p.s. What is ethnicity, race and indigence (poverty) doing on "Maryland's Sentencing Guides Worksheet"?
16. Re:isn't that why we have judges by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  Regarding the last question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_%28law%29
  I'm guessing, IANALC.
17. Re:isn't that why we have judges by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  Consultation of a static lookup table is an algorithm.
18. Re:isn't that why we have judges by moortak · 2009-10-23 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Most likely to note any trends in sentencing disparity.
  
  --
  Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
19. Re:isn't that why we have judges by moortak · 2009-10-23 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  I f you are looking to plead out a public defender is grand they know exactly how little time they can get you. If you have a complex trial ahead of you they probably aren't the best choice.
  
  --
  Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
20. Re:isn't that why we have judges by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  p.s. What is ethnicity, race and indigence (poverty) doing on "Maryland's Sentencing Guides Worksheet"?
  Hopefully so that they can document that they applied the sentencing guidelines consistently (even if they did get it wrong a lot).
21. Re:isn't that why we have judges by shentino · 2009-10-23 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Unless these recommendations are binding, it's a big fat case of "tough luck" because the judge was the one issuing the sentence.
  If they are optional the only choice is to bring it to the attention of the sentencing judge and hope they see fit to change their mind.
  Isn't judicial discretion wonderful?
  Not to mention that the power to put some "jerk" in jail is quite intoxicating. And if you can get that power and have it disguised as a clerical error...*evil laugh*.
22. Re:isn't that why we have judges by shentino · 2009-10-23 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  update: I did forget about due process appeals.
23. Re:isn't that why we have judges by shentino · 2009-10-23 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  What gripes me is that you even have to make a deal in the first place.
  Negotiation belongs in the boardroom.
  Keep it out of the criminal justice system please.
24. Re:isn't that why we have judges by shentino · 2009-10-23 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  The legal system doesn't give a rat's ass if you screwed up.
  This is the exact same "speak now or forever hold your peace" rush-mongering that got spamhaus in trouble when they were sued by e390.
25. Re:isn't that why we have judges by dfjunior · 2009-10-23 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  except the problem here is the D.A. is a fucktard who can't add 2+2 *with* a calculator
26. Re:isn't that why we have judges by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-24 01:04 · Score: 0
  
  This just in, money is useful.
  Let's say you abolished lawyering as a profession; now, everyone argues their case directly by themselves to a judge. The rich person has advantages. They can take time off work to focus on their defense, where the working stiff must continue working. They've also had years of time and ample resources to get educated, with all the advantages that entails. They can afford to travel and to pay for services in setting up their defense. Assuming that both people are of equal intelligence, the rich one will win more often. Now, let's bring it one step closer to reality: the accused may hire one advocate. The rich person wins again, because they have the freedom to shop around in hiring, to collaborate closely with their advocate, and to fund additional research by the advocate. Even if we should assume that both advocates happen to be of equal skill, the rich person's advocate has more money to use in the research and case-building steps, which lets them explore more avenues of defense, which leads to more exonerating evidence or more compelling arguments to be brought forth. Again, the rich person wins more often. Now, let's get down to it and say that defendants may hire as large an advocacy team as they can afford. The rich person wins more, because even if the poor person gains access to a skilled lawyer (public defense, pro bono work, or sympathetic donations), the arbitrarily rich person can hire an even better or larger firm.
  This is not to say that public defenders are useless and worthy of abolition; this is not to say that it is fair that rich people win more. This is to say that lawyering, like house-building, code-writing, or engineering, costs money, and additional funding correlates strongly with better products. However much the state provides for public defense, at some level, the rich will be able to pay more. I do think we could do with additional funding for public defenders, that we need to correct a number of imbalances in sentencing between white-collar and street crime, and more generally, I think we need to work -- hard -- to improve the status of our working class; plenty of people are working darn hard and not getting repaid decently. We're just about rich enough as a nation that the basic needs of life should be guaranteed for all 0.3 billion of us. Nevertheless, to pretend that we can enact some set of laws that will make the poor and rich EQUAL is absurd.
27. Re:isn't that why we have judges by Nyder · 2009-10-24 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  That one in ten cases is incorrectly sentenced by this system says to me that some of the attorneys are filling these forms out; When the clerks take care of it, they usually get it right.
  totally agree.
  I had a court case once were the court clerk ended up telling the judge that the sentence I was getting was wrong, and that her superior (the clerk's) would end up giving the paperwork back because it was wrong.
  I would of laughed at the judge, but decided to keep my mouth closed since I was getting out of jail.
  Just shows me that the real peeps doing all the correct work are usually the ones who aren't getting paid for it.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
28. Re:isn't that why we have judges by conureman · 2009-10-25 21:42 · Score: 1
  
  I think the heavy lifters probably do okay. One thing I noticed over the (13) years of seeing the clerks working in filing office at the family law court in San Francisco, was the total lack of turnover. Those guys rule in their world. I, of course, did some light ass-kissing on my first couple visits, and have been endlessly rewarded in the ensuing years. (I did some messenger work in L.A. and sort of knew the score when I got there). The Judges, lawyers, and departments come and go; The same guys help with all the filing. My son turns 18 in a few months, I think it's time to write Judge Feinstein a few of my REAL thoughts.
  
  --
  The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Whoops by Useful+Wheat · 2009-10-23 02:27 · Score: 4, Funny

I always knew using microsoft excel would damn your soul to hell, but I didn't know it could also send you to jail as well.
1. Re:Whoops by davester666 · 2009-10-23 03:36 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Maybe Diebold could create a console system for filling in these forms? They've done such a great job with voting forms...
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
2. Re:Whoops by BikeHelmet · 2009-10-23 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Web 2.0 forms don't make such mistakes! :P
Garbage in... by Hognoxious · 2009-10-23 02:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

... garbage out.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
PEBKAC by soundhack · 2009-10-23 02:31 · Score: 3, Informative

Wow, I have to turn in my geek card, I didn't know what this meant until I googled it.
Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair
1. Re:PEBKAC by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 02:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I didn't know what it meant to turn in one's geek card, but I googled it. I also didn't know which bathroom to use at Outback Steakhouse. I also didn't know to spit out my gum before falling asleep. I didn't know the twist from The Crying Game. At one point I didn't even know my own name. At no point did I announce these personal revelations to the world - we didn't have twitter yet.
  It's called "learning". Welcome to the club.
2. Re:PEBKAC by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 03:04 · Score: 0
  
  I agree. When someone uses an acronym that actually impedes communication, they've missed the point.
3. Re:PEBKAC by MadKeithV · 2009-10-23 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  That'll start working when chairs fly.
  Hold on, I think I've figured out what Balmer's working on!
4. Re:PEBKAC by Captain+Spam · 2009-10-23 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with a PEBKAC diagnosis is that even when you replace the offending filter, you're still taking input from a chair...
  Ah, but the chair is less likely to give you faulty data, isn't it?
  
  --
  Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
5. Re:PEBKAC by wastedlife · 2009-10-23 03:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I vote you can keep your geek card, because you googled it. If you had just posted "PEBKAC, what the fuck does that mean?! Damn kids and their txt speak", we would kindly ask you to hand in your geek card and resume lawn-guarding duties.
  
  --
  Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
6. Re:PEBKAC by ElectricTurtle · 2009-10-23 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Now it's time for you to turn in your geek card. Seriously.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
7. Re:PEBKAC by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 03:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Err, the entire POINT of that specific acronym is to 'impede communication'. It was an inside joke made such that an outside user was unlikely to pick up on the fact that it was an insult.
8. Re:PEBKAC by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 03:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I've always seen this before referred to as a PICNIC error...
  Problem in chair not in computer...
  PICNIC trips of the tongue a bit more easily than PEBKAC...
9. Re:PEBKAC by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  I hate when people use that acronym. Thankfully it's not used often any more. Every time I see it, it takes me several seconds to parse it and remember what it means. It would be easier to just write out the damn words.
  It's a holdover acronym from back in the day when USENET was a popular discussion forum. Nobody with half a brain uses it these days.
10. Re:PEBKAC by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 04:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  PICNIC trips of the tongue a bit more easily than PEBKAC...
  That's kind of the point. Since it is a complicated-sounding acronym, you can say it to the person's face: "Uh, huh. Uh, huh. Yeah, I've seen this before. Sounds like a PEBKAC error. Here's what you need to do..."
  Much better than: "Uh, huh. Uh, huh. Yeah, I've seen this before. Sounds like a PICNIC error"
  "Haha, that's funny, what's it stand for?"
  "Uh, problem in chair, not in computer"
  "Asshole"
11. Re:PEBKAC by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 04:56 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  PEBKAC is an acronym which stands for "Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair". The phrase is used by computer experts as a humorous way to describe user errors. In 2006, Intel began running a number of PEBKAC web-based advertisements to promote its vPro platform.
  Wikipedia is your friend.
12. Re:PEBKAC by JCSoRocks · 2009-10-23 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  This is true, at least he managed to RTFM.
  
  --
  You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
13. Re:PEBKAC by Arthur+Grumbine · 2009-10-23 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  JFGI solves many issues related to the understanding of unknown acronyms. And has the advantage of being potentially humorous the first time one experiences it. I'm glad to hear it solved your problem.
  
  --
  Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
14. Re:PEBKAC by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 08:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That's ok, the chick from The Crying Game didn't know which bathroom to go to either.
Wait... by Overkill+Nbuta · 2009-10-23 02:32 · Score: 5, Funny

I thought grammar errors resulted in improper sentences.
1. Re:Wait... by FooAtWFU · 2009-10-23 02:59 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Looks like they accidentally their whole debt to society.
  
  --
  The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
2. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  Can someone please tell me why leaving verbs out of sentences is suddenly cool?
3. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 17:17 · Score: 0
  
  Because we're talking about sentence-ing errors.
Legal Malpractice by Dr.+Grabow · 2009-10-23 02:34 · Score: 5, Informative

IAAL and it is legal malpractice to not double-check the prosecution's sentencing algorithm and recommendations to the judge ...
1. Re:Legal Malpractice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  Double-checking doesn't reduce the probability of error to zero. How can you prove malpractice when there's is a chance the defense made the same error when using the worksheet?
2. Re:Legal Malpractice by kj_kabaje · 2009-10-23 03:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Holy sh!t. So 1 of every 10 cases in Maryland should result in malpractice suit? That's a stunningly low quality of lawyers in this PhD's sample.
3. Re:Legal Malpractice by cvd6262 · 2009-10-23 03:09 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  IAAL and it is legal malpractice to not double-check the prosecution's sentencing algorithm and recommendations to the judge ...
  That's great! So, where do I bring this up? What happens to the lawyers who make these mistakes?
  I'm not being snarky; I sincerely wish to know.
  When I moved to the East Coast I found it odd that I needed a lawyer to buy a house. I had bought and sold out West on a handshake and a contract. I was told that out here, where property has been bought and sold for centuries, the lawyers would check deeds, get the property surveyed, etc. OK, I got that.
  But what happens if in ten years, somebody's great grandson comes by with a deed on the northern half of my land? Do I get my lawyer fees back?
  Similarly, a family member of mine just settled on her divorce. When it came time to sign the papers, her ex acted shocked at the agreement. His laywer said, "You can't blame him. He just didn't understand the terms." So, then, can we blame the laywer who was supposed to explain it to him?
  Coming back to the topic here: So the defense attorney screwed up. 1) What are the paths of recourse for those who suffered from the mistake? 2) What are the consequences to the lawyer who screwed up?
  Because, in my dealing with lawyers, they almost never get called out on their mistakes.
  
  --
  
  I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
4. Re:Legal Malpractice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  This was in 2005. It's now late 2009. I have to wonder how long this has really been going on, and seriously doubt that this sort of thing is restricted to Maryland.
  I'm not sure disbarment, or even jail time would do justice for the lawyers, D.A's. judges, and clerical staff that allowed this negligence to flow through.
  Violation of Due Process anyone?
5. Re:Legal Malpractice by snspdaarf · 2009-10-23 03:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You can sue a lawyer for malpractice. Of course, you need another lawyer....
  
  You can also file a bar complaint. The state bar association will investigate. And, in spite of, or perhaps because of, all the lawyer jokes, they take it seriously.
  
  In the case of your land, that is what title insurance is for. However, what is usually in the closing costs for title insurance is to protect the bank, should there be a title error, so they don't lose the loan money. You have to buy your own title insurance to protect your investment. You can also get an abstract of title and check it out yourself, but the abstract costs money.
  
  My experience with lawyers is that they will be more than happy to explain anything you want in more detail, but if you just sit there and nod, they presume you understand what is going on. Health care, legal care, or custom software, if you don't stay engaged, you won't get the outcome you want.
  
  --
  Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
6. Re:Legal Malpractice by cvd6262 · 2009-10-23 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  In the case of your land, that is what title insurance is for.
  
  So the company that insures my title will get the money back from the lawyer whom I paid to cleared the title?
  Or does the lawyer keep the money regardless of the outcome?
  
  --
  
  I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
7. Re:Legal Malpractice by DragonWriter · 2009-10-23 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  That's great! So, where do I bring this up? What happens to the lawyers who make these mistakes?
  They get sued for malpractice. Or someone files a complaint with the State Bar. Or both.
8. Re:Legal Malpractice by MBGMorden · 2009-10-23 03:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  But what happens if in ten years, somebody's great grandson comes by with a deed on the northern half of my land? Do I get my lawyer fees back?
  Basically, strange things happen. I work in a county government where we handle property tax billing, and essentially the situation you describe results in a disputed property record being created.
  Generally we have parcel ID numbers to distinguish unique tracks of land. These are 10 digit numbers. When a piece of land becomes disputed though a letter will be added behind - so 1001003832A and 1001003832B for example. These are physically the same pieces of land that will be listed under the original ownership and the disputed ownership. Legally, until something changes, BOTH parties own the land. Both are charged property taxes, and if either fails to pay then they forfeit their stake in the land to the county (which interestingly enough, can then be auctioned at the tax sale as a stake in the land even though there is already another owner).
  What USUALLY happens is that one or the other owner will either cave and sell their share to the other owner, resulting in a single ownership again, or one of them will just eventually stop paying the taxes and the current owner will purchase back that stake in the land at auction (since the fact that the propery is disputed will hamper the auction value a lot anyways).
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
9. Re:Legal Malpractice by MartinSchou · 2009-10-23 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  Or someone files a complaint with the State Bar.
  
  I swear to The Flying Spaghetti Monster that I read that as
  
  Or someone files a complaint with the Battlestar.
10. Re:Legal Malpractice by MartinSchou · 2009-10-23 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Both are charged property taxes
  Isn't that double dipping? How is that even legal?
  I can understand it, IF the parties are charged an amount equal to half (a third or however many parties there are) of the original property tax, but otherwise there will be absolutely no interest in settling this from the perspective of the government.
  While I'm sure what you're saying is only giving a brief outline of what happens, it sounds as if you could use this method to ruin people you don't like.
  Just cook up four or five fake deeds to their land, give it to shady people and have them press forward with lawsuits etc., and the county is getting plenty of money from the new "owners" and as such they have no interest in speeding up procedures.
  And when someone finally folds, they'll get even MORE money in the land auctions. And as you said, now the actual owner have to spend even more money on buying his land, and the original perpetrator can now swoop in and buy the land and have it white washed through the county itself. Brilliant.
11. Re:Legal Malpractice by Chris+Mattern · 2009-10-23 04:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  My experience with lawyers is that they will be more than happy to explain anything you want in more detail
  They get to charge $300+ an hour to sit there and explain things to you. Damn straight they're "more than happy" to do it!
12. Re:Legal Malpractice by Ritz_Just_Ritz · 2009-10-23 04:20 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "Isn't that double dipping? How is that even legal?"
  Palpatine: I'll MAKE it legal.
13. Re:Legal Malpractice by jhfry · 2009-10-23 04:23 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It is indeed double dipping... and it's brilliant.
  It's like when you and a sibling or friend fought over a toy and your parents ripped it in half and gave you each a piece. No one wins unless one side relents. That's justice!
  
  --
  Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
14. Re:Legal Malpractice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  I know that on my house the attorney specifically said he was required by law to carry malpractice insurance of at least half a million dollars an incident. Additionally, we were required to sign a piece of paper indicating if we wished to purchase insurance such that if something was done improperly this insurance would pay the attorney fees up front as an effort to ensure we could sue if appropriate. As a buyer the insurance was only $30. The problem: to buy the insurance you had to sign the piece of paper and give the check to the attorney. He found that a real problem since either we believed he was obeying the law and carrying the malpractice insurance which would cover it, or he was a liar and why would we trust him with our money and form.
15. Re:Legal Malpractice by MBGMorden · 2009-10-23 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that double dipping? How is that even legal?
  It's how the law is written, hence it's legal (and remember that county governments have a legal system and pass laws themselves to - just like the Federal to State relationship, anything that the State doesn't forbid, county council can make laws on themselves). Honestly, I can say that given the tiny amount of extra revenue we get from disputed properties (out of 90,000+ properties in our system was have about 15 that are disputed) it causes far more headaches to deal with that the little bit of extra revenue is worth, particularly when it's often just large tracts of vacant land - some with an agricultural exemption (essentially they pay only a tiny fraction of what the actual tax cost would be if they're using it for agricultural purposes, of which just growing trees for timber can qualify). We just deal with it how the law prescribes because, well, we have to.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
16. Re:Legal Malpractice by mcgrew · 2009-10-23 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  I work in a county government where we handle property tax billing... Generally we have parcel ID numbers to distinguish unique tracks of land
  You mean the railroad is disputing ownership of a particulat tract of land? Sorry, but your misspelling of that single word makes one think that maybe you don't handle anything remotely related to property. They're tracts of land, not tracks of land.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
17. Re:Legal Malpractice by mcgrew · 2009-10-23 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Because, in my dealing with lawyers, they almost never get called out on their mistakes.
  There are articles in the newspaper every month about lawyers being sanctioned, which actually illustrates your point. If it were common, it woudn't be news.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
18. Re:Legal Malpractice by MBGMorden · 2009-10-23 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  I'm well aware of the distinction in terms (though it's more common to refer to them as parcels here than tracts). I'm sure there are other misspellings in my post too.
  Much like you're little slip with:
  
  You mean the railroad is disputing ownership of a particulat tract of land?
  If you presume every time someone misspells a word that they're lying then you're in for one heck of a doubting spell.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
19. Re:Legal Malpractice by element-o.p. · 2009-10-23 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect if that was what really happened, the error rate would quickly become significantly less than 1:10
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
20. Re:Legal Malpractice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  His was a misspelling, yours was the use of an incorrect word.
  Man up, and admit to your mistake...
21. Re:Legal Malpractice by MBGMorden · 2009-10-23 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  I already admitted my mistake. If you're prefer me to say that I used an incorrect word than I'll say that. That doesn't change my original post however, and it certainly doesn't change my qualifications (namely that I work as the system admin for the appraisal software used to track and value the real property within the county, as well as being the maintainer of the synchronization scripts that move that data to the taxing system).
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
22. Re:Legal Malpractice by mcgrew · 2009-10-23 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  If you presume every time someone misspells a word that they're lying then you're in for one heck of a doubting spell.
  If I see someone spell "loose" when they mean "lose" I generally think they're just making a typo. Or with "noone" (easy enough to miss the space bar). But when you use the wrong word entirely it makes me think you really don't know what you're talking about. How, exactly, did you confuse "tracts" with "Tracks"? I would think someone working in a tax office would see the word "tracts" written far more often than they would hear it spoken. I would assume if you made a slip like that instead of talking about "tracks of land" you would say something about crossing railroad tracts.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
23. Re:Legal Malpractice by MBGMorden · 2009-10-23 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's something I occasionally do when typing. If you choose to believe I'm lying based on a typo then so be it; I refuse to get into a debate as to whether or not I'm really doing the job I say I do based on a single word slip.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
24. Re:Legal Malpractice by mcgrew · 2009-10-23 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, I'll take your word for it. Not like I'm perfect or anything.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
25. Re:Legal Malpractice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  One of my teachers ages ago told us a story:
  He bought a restaurant, and it turned out there was a lien against it.
  The police came in guns blazing and took the property and everything in it from them.
  They pointer a gun at his wife when she tried to keep the mini fridge they had brought in.
  In the end the Lawyer asked my teacher how much money would make this problem go away, since the lawyer would certainly be disbarred for his mistake.
26. Re:Legal Malpractice by Kaenneth · 2009-10-23 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  IAAL and it is legal malpractice to not double-check the prosecution's sentencing algorithm and recommendations to the judge ...
  That's assuming the error is not in their clients favor...
27. Re:Legal Malpractice by MBGMorden · 2009-10-23 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks - and in my defense in a follow up post http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1415841&cid=29848115 which I made before you called me on the error I correctly used tracts. As I said just a slip of the fingers ;).
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
28. Re:Legal Malpractice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 12:55 · Score: 0
  
  I live in a part of Maryland where 10% competent lawyers would be an improvement. Of course, what can you expect in a part of a state that doesn't throw a judge into jail for willfully committing a crime and admitting it to the reporter interviewing him?
What by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 02:34 · Score: 0, Funny

What talking about you are?
PEBKAC by zippthorne · 2009-10-23 02:35 · Score: 1

The problem with a PEBKAC diagnosis is that even when you replace the offending filter, you're still taking input from a chair...

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Justice is only available to the rich by cryfreedomlove · 2009-10-23 02:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is another example of why impartial and fair justice is really only available to the rich. A rich defendant could afford to pay his high powered defense attorney team to scrutinize this level of detail. This is not happening for poor defendants who are forced to settle for noble, but overworked, public defenders.
1. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by Itninja · 2009-10-23 02:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Does that also mean that, when a rich person does get convicted and go to jail, they must have really done it? Whereas a poor person who goes to jail is likely just a victim of the system?
  
  --
  I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
2. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2009-10-23 03:02 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Does that also mean that, when a rich person does get convicted and go to jail, they must have really done it? Whereas a poor person who goes to jail is likely just a victim of the system?
  Probably. But having really "done it" according to the law doesn't mean the law itself is good law.
  Don't confuse being technically correct with being fair or right.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
3. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  Yes.
4. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by benwiggy · 2009-10-23 03:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Are you suggesting that reading the correct cell from a spreadsheet table is a level "detailed scrutiny", which public defenders are incapable of?
  As a lawyer has posted above, it is malpractice not to check this.
  Whilst I agree that justice is what you pay for it, this isn't a great example.
5. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by cvd6262 · 2009-10-23 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  This is another example of why impartial and fair justice is really only available to the rich.
  You need to add the stipulation "... in our FUBAR system."
  There are ways to reform it, but short of a revolution, they're not happening.
  
  --
  
  I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
6. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by Hatta · 2009-10-23 03:22 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Do you have any counter examples of rich and powerful people wrongly convicted?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
7. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by ElectricTurtle · 2009-10-23 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  With noble souls like these, who needs corruption?
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
8. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by FlightTest · 2009-10-23 04:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No, it means a rich person is much more likely to get the correct sentence, for better or for worse. I read most of TFA so I may have missed it, but it didn't seem to say whether longer or shorter sentences were more likely. It did say that race wasn't a factor in the error, and implied that the errors were non-intentional.
  
  --
  Merde, il pleut encore!
9. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by sjames · 2009-10-23 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  It does suggest that a convicted rich person is much more likely to have actually done it than a poor person convicted on the same strength of evidence. It does not rise to the level of 100% certainty.
10. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by Itninja · 2009-10-23 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Of course not. I mean, their social standing makes their wrongful conviction a fundamental impossibility. It just makes sense.
  Kidding aside, the wrongful conviction of the rich and powerful usually come in the form of purges or revolutions. As opposed to us plebes that get stuck with the pedestrian court system, the powerful get lined up and shot, or beheaded, or just 'disappeared'.
  
  --
  I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
11. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by sjames · 2009-10-23 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Given a sufficiently large caseload, even the best and brightest will perform poorly. This applies to many professions including law.
12. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by sjames · 2009-10-23 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing the many people incompetently defended (particularly in the first link) were NOT granted a new trial even though they were set up to lose before they even got to court.
13. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by conureman · 2009-10-23 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Don't go confusing findings with facts, I've personally gone to jail for "crimes" that, had they factually occurred, I would not have been guilty of, anyway. Not a damn thing to be done either.
  
  --
  The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
14. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by ultranova · 2009-10-23 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Does that also mean that, when a rich person does get convicted and go to jail, they must have really done it?
  
  No, it just means that they've managed to piss of someone even more powerfull.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
15. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by LanMan04 · 2009-10-23 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Does that also mean that, when a rich person does get convicted and go to jail, they must have really done it? Whereas a poor person who goes to jail is likely just a victim of the system?
  Yes.
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
16. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by element-o.p. · 2009-10-23 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Let's assume that the error rate for any given lawyer is 1:100. Now let's assume that a big-league legal firm working on a high-profile case for a rich/powerful/famous/etc. person dedicates a staff of 10 lawyers to the case. If any given lawyer will make an error for every 100 details, then the odds of all ten lawyers making the same mistake are pretty slim. Therefore, the odds of having an error in the sentencing for such a defendant are also pretty slim, right?
  
  Now, look at the opposite case. Rather than having ten lawyers scrutinizing every detail for the rich, powerful, blah-blah-blah defendant, you have one public defender scrutinizing details for ten impoverished clients. The public defender's workload is one hundred times greater (ten defendants vs. one defendant X one lawyer looking over all the details vs. ten lawyers). Consequently, the odds of him (or her) making an error that doesn't get caught is significantly greater.
  
  It's not that a public defender is incapable of detecting the errors; it's that in a high-workload environment, people tend not to notice discrepancies as easily. Of course, IANAL nor have I ever worked in a legal office, so the above hypothetical situation may be complete bunk...but I doubt it.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
17. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by Sinical · 2009-10-23 10:57 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I would agree that this is pretty close to the truth: innocent rich people can provide a much better defense than innocent poor people who typically cut deals. Due to the volume pressures (mostly due to incredibly minor drug offenses clogging up the courts), judges typically apply a "trial tax" where if you don't plead out, you get hit with a stiffer sentence (for taking up more of his time and lowering his "clearance rate"). Poor people who have to rely on overworked public defenders (who are also part of the court system more than private lawyers and also feel the volume pressures) are less likely to want to chance it.
  I would encourage you to read Courtroom 302 which is a look at a year in a Chicago Superior court. It's pretty disheartening. :(
obligatory by Anonymusing · 2009-10-23 02:51 · Score: 4, Funny

You've experienced an ID 10-T error.

--
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
1. Re:obligatory by Itninja · 2009-10-23 02:56 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  No, no....it's was a Layer 8 problem for sure.
  
  --
  I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
2. Re:obligatory by nametaken · 2009-10-23 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Replying to undo an accidental mod.
3. Re:obligatory by complete+loony · 2009-10-23 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, there's just a nut loose on his keyboard.
  
  --
  09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
4. Re:obligatory by lennier · 2009-10-26 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's the Layer 9 issues you really have to watch out for...
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Oh the irony we'll have by musselm · 2009-10-23 03:00 · Score: 1

FTA: "The problem? And all too-common problem with anything to do with information and analysis: human error."
Rough math by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 03:04 · Score: 4, Funny

2 + 2 = life sentence
(for very large values of 2)
1. Re:Rough math by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  Judge: "Right, you are found guilty and the sentence is", *typing noises*, "NaN months!".
2. Re:Rough math by Tarsir · 2009-10-23 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  And very small values of life =/
3. Re:Rough math by FishOuttaWater · 2009-10-23 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  All depends on the units and the constants man: 2 murders - life. 2 stolen TVs - not so much.
4. Re:Rough math by Idarubicin · 2009-10-23 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  ...or short lifetimes.
  
  --
  ~Idarubicin
5. Re:Rough math by daveime · 2009-10-23 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  2 shared MP3s ... about 100 million dollars fine and 150 years hard labour in Siberia.
6. Re:Rough math by FishOuttaWater · 2009-10-23 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  You sure that's not from the adjacent cell, "counter-revolutionary activities?"
legal analysts too stupid for number crunching? by kj_kabaje · 2009-10-23 03:06 · Score: 1

This isn't hard core number crunching or anything, but why does it take an econ PhD to figure out something's wrong with the criminal justice system?
1. Re:legal analysts too stupid for number crunching? by badkarmadayaccount · 2009-10-24 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  They alone understand the dark art of Excel.
  
  --
  I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Just goes to show by AP31R0N · 2009-10-23 03:15 · Score: 3, Funny

Spell and grammar check aren't enough to ensure proper sentences.

--
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
1. Re:Just goes to show by daveime · 2009-10-23 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Spelling and grammar checks aren't enough to ensure proper sentences.
  FTFY
2. Re:Just goes to show by AP31R0N · 2009-10-23 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Most people (around me) say "Spell check that" rather than "Spelling check that". i might say, "(you) check that for spelling (errors)". Hmm. Google gives 17,600,000 results for 'spell check' and 11,800,000 for 'spelling check'. On Wikipedia, 'spelling checker' redirects to 'spell checker'.
  What's your English dialect? Mine is GenAm.
  i wouldn't say "Spell and grammar checks" because each is one check. Which makes me think you're coming from a different dialect. Would you say "Pearl Jam is on tour" or "... are on tour"?
  -ing aside, what if i had said this?
  Spell check and grammar check aren't enough to ensure proper sentences.
  
  --
  Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
3. Re:Just goes to show by daveime · 2009-10-23 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  English English.
  I wouldn't use "spell check" in *any* sentence to be honest. A spell is something cast by Harry Potter, so a "spell check" is presumably to make sure he cast it correctly.
  Your example of 'Would you say "Pearl Jam is on tour" or "... are on tour"?' is misplaced logic anyway. Pearl Jam is a proper noun, referring to the group as a whole, not the individual members. Therefore "Pearl Jam is on tour". It's a completely different useage than two individual common nouns separated with "and".
  Now if Pearl Jam *and* Metallica were on tour, then the correct useage would be "A and B are on tour".
  "Hmm. Google gives ...". Well considering there are about 33 million English English speakers, and 330 million American English speakers, those results are hardly surprising are they ? It's a biased sample, and renders your assertion void. Likewise your reference to Wikipedia, for the same reasons.
  If you want to abbreviate / bastardise / trivialise the language because it's too complicated for you, then be my guest, but the word is "spelling" and always will be.
  Here's a gem from the Urban Dictionary you might appreciate (or possibly not).
  Bastardised English
  The act of removing letters from words because the populace of your country is to stupid to comprehend them any other way. (A process synonymous with "Butchering")
  It probably pisses you guys off that the English language is named after...the English, but why not go and find another middle eastern country to invade or something.
  American 1: "Dude, what's aluminium?"
  American 2: "I don't know, let's ignore the system international naming protocol of scientific standards, and just call it something else because we can't handle that many syllables!"
  American 1: "Hey man, that's a great idea! Hoo-Arr!"
4. Re:Just goes to show by AP31R0N · 2009-10-24 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. i asked you a few honest questions and you went full asshole. Do you treat people like that in person, or only when they can't strangle you?
  The earliest citation given in the **Oxford English Dictionary** for any word used as a name for this element is alumium, which **British** chemist and inventor Humphry Davy employed in 1808 for the metal he was trying to isolate electrolytically from the mineral alumina. The citation is from his journal Philosophical Transactions: "Had I been so fortunate as..to have procured the metallic substances I was in search of, I should have proposed for them the names of silicium, alumium, zirconium, and glucium."[42]
  By 1812, **Davy** had settled on **aluminum**. He wrote in the journal Chemical Philosophy: "As yet Aluminum has not been obtained in a perfectly free state."[43] But the same year, an ->anonymous contributor- to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, objected to aluminum and proposed the name aluminium, "for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a ***less classical sound***."[44]
  The -ium suffix had the advantage of conforming to the precedent set in other newly discovered elements of the time: potassium, sodium, magnesium, calcium, and strontium (all of which Davy had isolated himself). Nevertheless, -um spellings for elements were not unknown at the time, as for example platinum, known to Europeans since the sixteenth century, molybdenum, discovered in 1778, and tantalum, discovered in 1802.
  The -um suffix on the other hand, has the advantage of being more consistent with the universal spelling alumina for the oxide, as lanthana is the oxide of lanthanum, and magnesia, ceria, and thoria are the oxides of magnesium, cerium, and thorium respectively.
  The spelling used throughout the 19th century by most U.S. chemists ended in -ium, but common usage is less clear.[45] The -um spelling is used in the Webster's Dictionary of 1828, as it was in 1892 when Charles Martin Hall published an advertising handbill for his new electrolytic method of producing the metal, despite his constant use of the -ium spelling in all the patents[39] he filed between 1886 and 1903.[46] It has consequently been suggested that the spelling reflects an easier to pronounce word with one fewer syllable, or that the spelling on the flier was a mistake. Hall's domination of production of the metal ensured that the spelling aluminum became the standard in North America; the Webster Unabridged Dictionary of 1913, though, continued to use the -ium version.
  In 1926, the American Chemical Society officially decided to use aluminum in its publications; American dictionaries typically label the spelling aluminium as a British variant.
  [edit] Present-day spelling
  Most countries spell aluminium with an i before -um. In the United States, the spelling aluminium is largely unknown, and the spelling aluminum predominates.[47][48] The Canadian Oxford Dictionary prefers aluminum, whereas the Australian Macquarie Dictionary prefers aluminium.
  The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) adopted aluminium as the standard international name for the element in 1990, but three years later recognized aluminum as an acceptable variant. Hence their periodic table includes both.[49] IUPAC officially prefers the use of aluminium in its internal publications, although several IUPAC publications use the spelling aluminum.[50]
  So it came down to an anonymous guy and who wanted it to sound classical, rather than the guy who isolated it. The addition of the "i" was arbitrary.
  English spellings pervade Wikipedia. People from many dialects are contributing. None of them are particularly dominant.
  The rest of your post is too childish, ignorant and belligerent to warrant response. Lighten up, Francis. i wasn't trying to prove you wrong, and the questions weren't rhetorical. i wanted to know where you were coming from. Now i know... Assholeville.
  
  --
  Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Ooops... must be an "entry error"... by Hurricane78 · 2009-10-23 03:31 · Score: 1

Yeah right...!
More like "getting paid for nudging sentences in the 'right direction'" 'errors'.

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
1. Re:Ooops... must be an "entry error"... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  FFS.. if you are going to be snarky, at least read TFA first.
  The article plainly said the errors went both directions and seemed to be basically random (no one group of criminals or crimes had a significantly higher percentage of errors than any other group.)
  Don't attribute to malice when mere stupidity will suffice.
For additional crimes by stkpogo · 2009-10-23 03:34 · Score: 2, Funny

Crime never adds up.
"morals of the story" by Permutation+Citizen · 2009-10-23 04:13 · Score: 1

Is it me ? I expected that the moral of the story is that you can't rely on an algorithm to choose a sentence in a criminal case.
Problem is not data wrongly entered or math errors. Problem is willing to apply those kind of formula. This is just absurd.
Explains Texas.... by Ritz_Just_Ritz · 2009-10-23 04:15 · Score: 1

The spreadsheet cell for sentencing recommendations for jaywalking is next to the one for murder 1.
I have to admit by FatdogHaiku · 2009-10-23 04:23 · Score: 1

When I read the headline "Data Entry Errors Resulted In Improper Sentences" the first thing that sprang to mind was to append "and sometimes piss poor paragraphs as well."

What I find interesting about TFA is the section on parole boards correcting the mistakes if the error shortened a sentence "So parole boards proved very effective in reversing errors that would have led to shortened prison time; much less so for undeserved extra time." So, if your sentence was too long they really did nothing above and beyond what they did for most all sentences, but if it was too short they caught it and corrected it to some degree.

Now I have to wonder if there are a bunch of lawyers getting revved up to sue on behalf of the people that had to stay in jail longer than the recommended amount of time. I'm pretty sure you can't sue a judge, but the fact that the parole board had corrective power and did not use it properly would seem to be something that would draw the sharks...

--
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
1. Re:I have to admit by Reziac · 2009-10-23 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  "So, if your sentence was too long they really did nothing above and beyond what they did for most all sentences, but if it was too short they caught it and corrected it to some degree."
  Wouldn't that be a run-on sentence??
  And it explains hanging offenses, too -- the penalty is due to dangling participles.
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re: keep... by TaoPhoenix · 2009-10-23 04:53 · Score: 1

Wait, did you just revise his sentence downward based upon your geek intuition?

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Wrong title article for this by ZipK · 2009-10-23 04:53 · Score: 1

Shouldn't this article have been titled "Data Errors Entry Resulted In Sentences Improper"?
Augmented Reality Time! by TaoPhoenix · 2009-10-23 04:57 · Score: 1

We need realtime Speech-To-Text. When someone is blistering past you, you can click on the link to Wiki and read it.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
locked spreadsheet? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 05:33 · Score: 0

I'm not a programer, nor have I ever built a databse, but even I've heard of locking a spreadsheet to make sure the right cells are filled in.
1. Re:locked spreadsheet? by osu-neko · 2009-10-23 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a programer, nor have I ever built a databse, but even I've heard of locking a spreadsheet to make sure the right cells are filled in.
  That technique will not prevent this kind of error for any spreadsheet that requires more than one cell be filled in.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
On top of... by Akoman · 2009-10-23 06:06 · Score: 1

This is an interesting stat when combined with a piece in the Journal of Forensic Identification which stated that 1/5 people were sentenced based on inadequate or manufactured evidence. At the time I read that there were 2 million people in the US prison system. Therefore are 400,000 people in prison who shouldn't be, according to this article, another 160,000 who are in prison for longer than they should be (some intersection with the previous group) and thats from a system that is trying to be more 'objective' and not mete out race or class justice. In places without 'objective' scoring I wonder how many over-long sentences there really are.
Guilt isn't because you are poor by sjbe · 2009-10-23 06:58 · Score: 1

And that is exactly what is wrong with your system. If you can afford a better lawyer that gets you a lower or no sentence, that means you have class justice.
You would think so but like so many things in life it's not as simple as a sound bite makes it. One of my cousins is a public defender. She's very good at her job, dedicated and loves what she does. However she is the first to tell you that virtually all of her clients ARE actually guilty. We're not talking probably guilty here, we're talking stone-cold-caught-in-the-act-and-probably-confessed guilty or something close to it. Speak to any public defender and they'll tell you basically the same thing. The overwhelming majority of their clients did what they are accused of doing. The job of the public defender at that point really is to get them the best sentencing deal they can but their resources for this are limited and the sentencing guidelines limit them even more. Yes, once in a blue moon she gets someone who is actually innocent but it's rare. Very rare. I know public defenders who can count the number of genuinely innocent clients they've had on their fingers. I'm pissed off that guilty rich people can get away with some things that they genuinely deserve punishment for but I'd rather have a system that errs on the side of freeing a guilty man over punishing an innocent one.
Please don't misunderstand me - I completely agree that it's not fair that we cannot have the best quality legal support for everyone. I'm just saying that it's not really a case of the poor get screwed merely because they are poor. They get "screwed" because they are poor AND we have a bizarre assault on judicial discretion which results in insane sentencing guidelines. The US does NOT have notably more crime than other countries but we do punish people severely for things that aren't punished as harshly elsewhere. It's a waste of money and other resources and the impact falls (like many other things) disproportionately on the poor.

(nearly) 1% of the population behind bars is an awful lot and compares very bad with the rest of the world.
Agreed but we could solve much of that problem with the stroke of a pen by not putting people in jail for minor drug offenses. We could solve a lot more by overhauling sentencing guidelines to something vaguely sane. The problem really is that we vote any politician out of office who dares to voice the fact that our sentencing laws have grown absurd in many cases. Such a politician is immediately labeled "soft on crime" even if they aren't.
Outrageous lack of competence by defense attorneys by LrdDimwit · 2009-10-23 09:17 · Score: 1

If I hadn't read the article, I would have said the fix is to have defense counsel go over the form - after all, that's what they're there for, to represent their client's interests. Then I find out that they did exactly that: the completed form was signed by both the prosecutor and the defense attorney before the judge sees it.

I'm with the author of the article: Any competent lawyer should never trust the number coming from the other side, for exactly this reason. To have your client be over-punished because you can't do basic arithmetic is just incompetent.

The article didn't say this, but I presume (since numerous other similar statistics are known to be true) that defense counsel were much more likely to make this mistake if they were public defenders. Lesson learned: If you're in that situation, never use public defenders. Your life depends on it.
The defense attorney did not make the mistake? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-24 07:44 · Score: 0

If you had worked for some attorneys in their offices instead of yours, you would know that an administrative assistant typed up the worksheet. The only thing the attorney saw was the little sticker that says "sign here."
This is not to place the blame wholly on the ad admin. Most of the ones I knew frequently asked, sometimes quite firmly, for the attorney to look over their work. Once a document was typed, all of the attorneys I knew, except for one, cared only about where to sign and when the bill went out.
(Posted anonymously for cowardly reasons.)