Unclear orders leave prison officials guessing at inmate sentence lengths, employee says

South Carolina prison officials are often left guessing how much time offenders should serve behind bars because they are receiving ambiguous directions from judges and solicitors, Department of Corrections officials testified in front of a legislative committee Thursday.

Unclear wording or unfilled sections on court orders cause confusion for Corrections staff responsible for entering sentencing data, Joette Scarborough, division director of classification and inmate records testified at a subcommittee meeting for the House Legislative Oversight Committee.

That means records analysts are often left doing their own research or contacting court officials and Correction’s attorneys to fill in the blanks, including in areas such as parole eligibility and whether offenders receive time off for days spent in local jails.

When an inmate is sentenced to serve time at the Department of Corrections, officials from a court send a paper sentencing document to Reception and Evaluation officials within the prison system. Clerks then transfer the information included on the sheet into a computer system, which calculates a sentence.

“This is complicated material our staff is being asked to interpret,” Scarborough said.

In some cases, analysts commit errors, not entering certain sentences or fields correctly. A mistake entering whether inmates were eligible for parole resulted in the early release of 10 violent inmates between 2016 and 2018, Scarborough testified. 

Scarborough said courts are not always clear on whether inmates, especially in drug cases, are eligible for parole. Analysts often have to search to see if new inmates have past drug convictions and must interpret for themselves whether the person is parole eligible.

Lexington Republican Rep. Micah Caskey asked if the issues could cause inmates to erroneously serve extra prison time.

In at least one case involving the interpretation of a new South Carolina law, that may have happened, said Bryan Stirling, Corrections director. The incident is now the subject of a lawsuit, he said, declining to comment further on the pending litigation.

Scarborough also testified that understaffing and records analysts’ low starting salary of about $33,000 contributed to the problem.

Caskey pointed out that right now, teachers are given a similar starting salary, and they were still expected to do their job correctly.

Though Stirling said his department took full responsibility for the mistake during the Thursday hearing, Scarborough said records analysts are struggling daily to prevent additional errors and misinterpretations.

“Our error rate should be zero,” Stirling said.

Scarbarough said her department often sends letters to court officials, asking for clarification on the sometimes handwritten sentencing sheets. Rep. Gary Clary, R-Pickens, said that is a systematic issue.

“We have an inherent problem in our system if you’re constantly having to email, write letters,” Clary said.

“I think we have a problem with our system if we’re having this many issues with our sentencing sheet,” the former judge added.

Clary called for court officials to work with the Department of Corrections to make the sentencing sheets more clear. He recommended all the responsible parties be brought together to discuss the issue. The recommendation passed the subcommittee unanimously.

“We ultimately have the responsibility to do this and make sure the sentences are right,” Stirling testified.