{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027227722772277228, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0012376237623762376, 'mean_word_length': 5.68595041322314, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Avoiding Garbage 3: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting Criminal Histories in Sexually Violent Predator Evaluations

At probable cause hearings in cases involving the civil commitment of a person as a sexually violent predator (SVP), judges consider evidence, likely including one or more reports from an evaluating psychologist or psychiatrist. At least in Florida, judges rely on the evaluators' reports as accurate sources for the person's criminal history, including his history of sex-offense convictions. But the evaluators' reports are not consistently accurate regarding criminal history, and no one in the process is demanding accuracy or questioning the “facts” included in the reports. Recommendations are made for evaluators, state programs, attorneys for respondents, state attorneys, and judges.