Outdated paper sentencing records are ‘ripe for error.’ SC is one of few using them
Ten inmates were released from S.C. prisons years before the end of their sentences thanks to a nearly 40-year-old computer system, human error and an antiquated way of communicating amongst law enforcement agencies that most other states do not use, a USC law professor said.
The Department of Corrections relies on employees to transfer information from a paper sentencing document to a computer system purchased in the 1980s in order to calculate inmates’ release dates, Corrections Director Bryan Stirling said. Between 2009 and 2017, records employees entered information from the courts incorrectly into the system, resulting in the mistaken releases.
South Carolina is one of the few states that rely on paper files sent from local courts to calculate sentences, University of South Carolina law professor Colin Miller said, calling the practice “uncommon.”
“There’s a lot of good stuff going on with prison reform and criminal justice reform here in South Carolina, and it seems like this is one area, though, that has not seen much in the area of reform,” Miller said, a specialist in criminal and civil procedure. “There’s ample room for improvement there.”
Department of Corrections employees on Thursday told a Legislative committee that records analysts have issues with the paper documents, which are sometimes handwritten. Judges and solicitors often give ambiguous directions or leave fields blank that require follow up questions.
Additionally, county courts use a code system for crimes that is different from the one used by the Department of Corrections, leaving analysts to interpret which codes best match those used by judicial officials, spokeswoman Chrysti Shain said.
“To have different counties across the state using entirely different systems, that’s just ripe for error, which clearly happened here,” Miller said.
But like in the case of 10 violent inmates released years early, issues can also spring from transferring information by hand from the sheets to the corrections department’s 40-year-old computer system.
The mistakes were discovered during a routine audit of releases, Stirling said. Soon after, the prison system’s IT department began work on recoding the old system so that it will match the courts, and administration officials added safeguards like second audits and involving legal counsel throughout the process.
That new system has not yet been completed.
But, even if South Carolina switched over to a digital system for transferring information, other states have proved that process is not infallible, Miller said. The law professor pointed to the state of Washington, where at least a dozen inmates were released accidentally after a software bug.
There, the legislature tried to improve the system by adding in an independent ombudsman’s office to handle issues and complaints and to require more audits, Miller said. Ultimately, the bill of improvements was not passed.
“(Washington’s proposals) might be interesting to explore,” Miller said. “The question is what it would cost to have something similar.”
Ideally, Stirling said he would like the department and the court system to transfer to a process that is fully automated.
“I always think automation is better,” Stirling said. “You take the potential for human error out.”
Gov. Henry McMaster’s office advocated for simplifying the process of calculating sentence lengths, calling the current system “convoluted,” according to a statement from spokesman Brian Symmes.
A subcommittee of the S.C. House’s Legislative Oversight Committee, though, called for officials within the court system to collaborate with the Department of Corrections on finding a way to eliminate confusion by updating the current sentencing sheets.
With multiple parties having to work together, Miller said the legislative route forward was likely the best way to go.
“That would be kind of tough to have something — without legislation — that would be effective,” he said.
Staff reporter Tom Barton contributed to this report.
