Hacker News Reader

Comment by ptaipale | Hacker News Reader

The headline is somewhat clickbaity and sensational.

Yes, it is bad that there are clerical errors in justice system.

But, if information is lost due to faulty software or user errors or even user error helped by bad UI design, it's still fundamentally just a clerical error. Those errors should be fixed and perhaps some people should be eligible for compensation for being mistreated due to error, but there is no sinister "software is putting people in jail" plan here. Just errors.

Embarrassing ones that should be fixed at a priority.

View on HN

It definitely seems like more of the blame here should be shouldered by the police and the courts, who, knowing that the system has problems (and hopefully assured that those problems will be resolved in the future) should put less faith in them, and double-check (against filed papers, for example) potentially dubious results.

This is more expensive in terms of people's times, but it's just part of the cost of adopting the new software, and should be treated as such, possibly by billing the software vendor for the additional manpower required to work with the software during the transition.

Indeed. The "Computer says no" or "Computer says catch him" attitude should change: particularly if you know it's a new system, check twice before making drastic actions based on data it gives.

Even just "computer says this record has been randomly selected for manual review to verify system integrity, please consult your administrator on how to proceed or enter a manager's PIN to override" would be really helpful since it would effectively train people in double checking.

I think it's more complex than checking twice. You can't check twice for something that doesn't exist on a record but should, for example. How would you know what to look for?

The point here is perhaps that some errors are less forgivable than others.

May be in the field like this some extra care should be taken to ensure that, despite possible clerical errors, the data entered is sufficiently accurate. Technically that's likely extra checks and more thoughts about clearness of UI. "Just clerical error" doesn't sound like enough justification in cases like this - software should actively help to avoid those errors, and do enough of that help.

> “With the old system, it took maybe one or two clicks to complete a process,” she said. “Now it takes 25 clicks, and there are drop-down boxes and all of that.”

> Because the system is so unwieldy, clerks are unable to enter data in the courtroom, she said, so that burden has fallen on other office workers. It’s created a backlog of more than 12,000 files that have not been uploaded — and that number is growing by up to 300 files a day, according to Woods.

Sounds like it's mostly a software design problem to me, rather than "clerk/user stupidity" issue:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Alameda-County-s-...

However, the fault probably does not lie in someone writing bad software; it's more about the authorities themselves defining a bad workflow when specifying the system.

I say this based on just a bit of personal experience in working with authorities and their mode of operation (in Europe but I expect US is not that different): it's often about covering one's ass by insisting on lots of checks and balances, and the work amounts generated by the processes are often neglected because they are someone else's problem.

This looks like fundamentally a public sector process issue. They'll improve it though.

> However, the fault probably does not lie in someone writing bad software; it's more about the authorities themselves defining a bad workflow when specifying the system.

> This looks like fundamentally a public sector process issue. They'll improve it though.

The better, "old system" was ordered by the same government office - two different results from the same "public sector process" should give a hint that maybe that is not the root cause of the problem. At the same time, since your comment attacks the public sector without providing alternatives, I can only assume that you are implying that a private company would handle this better - are you proposing to privatize the courts?

The old system was ordered maybe 20 years ago, maybe even longer. Lots of new legislation has been introduced since that, and perhaps that new legislation is the very reason why some systems had to be renewed.

Also, a new generation of public servants are at work, defining and specifying the work.

Who remembers, were there problems at the time when the old system was taken to use?

No, I'm not suggesting courts should be privatised, but the ever-expanding legislation is a problem throughout the Western world (I'm not from the US).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com