Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Data Entry Errors Resulted In Improper Sentences

Posted by kdawson on 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."

39 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. isn't that why we have judges by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 mark_hill97 · · 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.

    4. Re:isn't that why we have judges by ElectricTurtle · · 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
    5. Re:isn't that why we have judges by nietsch · · 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
    6. Re:isn't that why we have judges by ultranova · · 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.

    7. Re:isn't that why we have judges by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    8. Re:isn't that why we have judges by DaveGod · · 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"?

  2. Whoops by Useful+Wheat · · 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.

  3. Garbage in... by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... garbage out.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  4. PEBKAC by soundhack · · 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 · · 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 wastedlife · · 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"
    3. Re:PEBKAC by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:PEBKAC by Anonymous Coward · · 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...

    5. Re:PEBKAC by Anonymous Coward · · 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"

    6. Re:PEBKAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's ok, the chick from The Crying Game didn't know which bathroom to go to either.

  5. Wait... by Overkill+Nbuta · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought grammar errors resulted in improper sentences.

    1. Re:Wait... by FooAtWFU · · 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.
  6. Legal Malpractice by Dr.+Grabow · · 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 kj_kabaje · · 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.

    2. Re:Legal Malpractice by cvd6262 · · 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.

    3. Re:Legal Malpractice by snspdaarf · · 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!
    4. Re:Legal Malpractice by MBGMorden · · 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
    5. Re:Legal Malpractice by Chris+Mattern · · 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!

    6. Re:Legal Malpractice by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Isn't that double dipping? How is that even legal?"

      Palpatine: I'll MAKE it legal.

    7. Re:Legal Malpractice by jhfry · · 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.
  7. Justice is only available to the rich by cryfreedomlove · · 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 · · 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 benwiggy · · 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.

    3. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you have any counter examples of rich and powerful people wrongly convicted?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by FlightTest · · 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!
    5. Re:Justice is only available to the rich by Sinical · · 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. :(

  8. obligatory by Anonymusing · · Score: 4, Funny

    You've experienced an ID 10-T error.

    --
    Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    1. Re:obligatory by Itninja · · 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.
  9. Rough math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    2 + 2 = life sentence

    (for very large values of 2)

  10. Just goes to show by AP31R0N · · 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!
  11. For additional crimes by stkpogo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Crime never adds up.