Minor Computer Flaw Frees State Prisoners 268
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.'"
Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Released prisoners late? (Score:4, Interesting)
The opposite happened In Dallas TX (Score:5, Interesting)
computer flaw? how about organisation flaw? (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Why don't they check the (paper!) documents they got from the judge or whoever to check if they really were sheduled to go out that day?
2. Why didn't those let out late complain? I'm sure the first thing they did when they got there, was circling the date they were sheduled to get out on their calender. (or whatever paper they have handy). How can they not notice that they passed that date by x weeks?
This story as usually raises more questions than it answers...
OT rant: Damn you, shallow news outlets! If a plane crashes, we get every small detail about what happened on which second, and what systems failed, but when it's about computer problems, all they can tell us is a 'glitch' or a 'crash' happened because they think it would be 'too technical'. Just tell exactly what the problem was, and if people don't understand completely, it's not going to kill them.
The story is -way- to vague... (Score:3, Interesting)
Was it a contractor or an in-house developed project would also be interesting. As well as what happened to the inmates who were released late? Is it just "tough luck" for them?
Does anyone have any additional information?
Re:Gracious Me! (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you want to live in a free society or not? If you want a free society, then you have to believe that it is ok for people to do crack or "cool stuff", as long as that's what they wanted to do (and they didn't truly injure a non-consenting third party in the course of their actions).
A society that is only free do to certain arbitrary things that some people want it to do is not a free one.
Re:Gracious Me! (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't really think there's a huge public safety hazard concerning weed (no more than alcohol, anyway, and generally only connected with driving), but there may be an economic productivity incentive to keep people off weed. That may be due as much to the stoner stereotype as to anything else, though. If weed is going to remain illegal, then personally, I think a fine and confiscation of contraband is appropriate punishment for possession of weed, up until you get to significant quantities (even street dealers of weed probably don't need to be thrown in prison as long as the fines are stiff enough that they can't make good money off of it).
Well, sorta... (Score:2, Interesting)
Just my prospective: personally, I think abusing anything of any kind (drugs, alcohol, food, gambling, Japanese school girl panties vending machines, whatever) is bad for the mind and body--but also for any kind of close relation, especially children... Without getting into morals and that crap, my argument is based on the relative damage an activity can do to a person.
I've seen too many people taken out by some of the more common stuff: alcohol, gambling, tobacco, marijuana (often as the gateway drug to other worse stuff), and it sucks. These are all things that can be done casually, but too much of it destroys people, families, and sometimes even generations. However, the speeds at which these things destroy a person/family vary greatly. Meth and other hardcore drugs, which significantly alter brain chemistry instantaneously, should be policed very tenaciously, because there is no way to use them casually.
I'll limit myself to two anecdotes: 1: these guys who used to own an engine machine shop I frequented somehow got involved with meth. It was an instant and violent transformation. One month, they were regular Joes, hardworking, and successful. The next month, they didn't do much work at all, the month after, they would take customers money to pay for their habits. In the period of six months, the once previously very beautiful (model quality, honest) wife of one of the greasers looked like she would pull tricks on the local boulevard for a high (no doubt in my mind that this is the case), and every one of their three (14, 16, 18 y.o.) daughters was pregnant. Ouch. Shortly after this, they got busted for making meth, and last I seen them, the daughters were looking quite a bit like your average geriatric. These guys were above average intelligence, but they still managed to destroy at least a dozen lives--in less than a year.
The other: the older brother of my grandmother. He's been a pothead since way before it was fashionable. Apparently, back when my great-grandmother was still alive, the whole of our family was fairly well to do, and they could afford all of the toys they ever wanted. When he got into weed (not alcohol, or anything else), he proceeded to fuck up every classic car the family had. 50's and 60's Corvettes, Cadilacs, Chevy's, anything you can imagine, they had it, he mangled it. Since great gamma died, he's squandered literally tens of millions of dollars of property, antiques, cars, and businesses. It's really too bad she was so senile when she wrote the will, because he got most of what was left over. Like I said, he's always been a pothead, but his daughter is now a meth head with 4 kids: one pregnant 13 year old, one incredibly obese 15 year old son, a 17 year old with 2 kids of her own, and one dead.
And this is why I say that anyone who says that weed doesn't fuck some people over is full of BS. Indeed, I've smoked, at first just to see what it was all about, and just because it's not a one-way road to misery like some other drugs. I must say that I'm not especially impressed, but it's fun to do socially anyway. No doubt, there are people that can handle it but there's always some weak willed asshole that will succumb to even mildly addictive behaviors. This is why I'm NOT against legalization. Once people get over its taboo quality, they'll realize it's just not that great.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Gracious Me! (Score:2, Interesting)
While, yes, there are definitely some problems with movie theatres on the whole. I don't think we're at a point where the movie experience can realistically be simulated in the home. Yes you can get a HD 42" plasma and a sweet 6.1 channel surround sound system, however it still doesn't compare to the awesomeness of seeing a movie at the theatre.
So, if you don't want to pay the ridiculously high price for popcorn than don't. That's entirely fine with me. Just don't cry if/when you're local cinema goes out of business. Also, don't bitch about it to other people.
Re:Gracious Me! (Score:2, Interesting)
One excellent argument I have heard regarding the decriminalisation of drugs was from Howard Marks [mrnice.co.uk] while he was giving a talk at the Glastonbury Festival.
The main argument was that Heroin and other Class A drugs should be made freely available to addicted abusers. At first I was stunned, and thought "Why the hell should we?" However, when explained further it made perfect sense. Any heroin addict who can register for free with his Doctor/GP and can get his hit on time 7 days a week - isn't going to go out stealing from homes and robbing people in the streets. Without the need for money to fuel their addiction, there would be less minor crime. Since the addict wouldn't be paying 100x the real price for the drug from a drug dealer - there would be less organised crime. There wouldn't be as many gangs who control distribution of drugs throughout areas, there would be less money to go around and they would have to find some other way to make their money illegitimately. There should be less of an insurance premium to pay on cars, houses and personal property because of the reduction of crime. There was some statistic thrown about that around 40% of crime is due to drug addiction.
In the end, regardless of the details - we have a choice to make for society as a whole. People will become try and become addicted to substances no matter how illegal we make them or how severe the punishment. So given the choice - who would you like to see sell drugs? A regulated goverment controlled industry? Or drug dealing gangs who use violence and crime to achieve their control over the drug abusers? Us, or them? - so to speak.
And of course, to give away hard drugs like heroin doesn't mean that you should give a 12 year old girl a bag full of crack if she happens to want to try it for the first time. Addicts need treatment by professionals, and getting them to the Doctors to get their hit would allow for control, monitoring and hopefully treatment in the future. With less dealers, there should be less of a temptation for first time users to become entangled in that lifestyle.
Most people I have tried to "sell" this idea too think I am crazy, and that drug addicts should all be shot and removed from the planet - until it's their son/daughter/brother/sister who is laying in a heap in the middle of the road, eyes rolling into the back of their heads and dribbling vomit onto their dirty clothes. When that hits, and you hear of an alternative to their destructive lifestyle - you wonder why we don't change societies ways.