4 ms·

Cases like this show what's wrong with the US justice system. There is no internal quality control so prosecutors can try to hold on to their errors and it's re

Cases like this show what's wrong with the US justice system. There is no internal quality control so prosecutors can try to hold on to their errors and it's really hard to get out of jail even if it's totally obvious that the person is innocent. I have now read about several cases where the person was obviously innocent but prosecution kept fighting a release tooth and nails delaying a release for years. In addition they often force a plea deal so the person can't even get compensation. In my (medical) company we have a quality department that's outside the normal management hierarchy so they can override any decisions made and stop a product release. The US really needs an institution who is motivated to make sure that justice system works correctly and has the power and budget to do so.

salawat 8y ago
Federallythis is the role played by the Office of the Inspector General, though they play more of an "inspect and raise awareness" role rather than the typical "pulling of the Andon" quality assurance role. I do think government may be benefited by an adversarial Quality Management process, but it shouldn't be reliant purely on inspection after the fact. It should have an involvement st all levels of the business of doing what government does if the maximum payoff via Quality management is to be achieved.
ddebernardy 8y ago
The relevant stakeholders are elected, or nominated or hired by elected officials. And as already pointed out in a sibling answer, there kind of is such an office already in some sense. The core of the problem is that if you try to introduce an extra layer of bureaucratic oversight, one might expect an outcry over it being technocratic or wasteful. So it's unfortunately not simple. (However much your viewpoint makes sense IMHO.)

4 ms·

Cases like this show what's wrong with the US justice system. There is no internal quality control so prosecutors can try to hold on to their errors and it's re

by maxxxxx 8y ago

salawat 8y ago
Federallythis is the role played by the Office of the Inspector General, though they play more of an "inspect and raise awareness" role rather than the typical "pulling of the Andon" quality assurance role. I do think government may be benefited by an adversarial Quality Management process, but it shouldn't be reliant purely on inspection after the fact. It should have an involvement st all levels of the business of doing what government does if the maximum payoff via Quality management is to be achieved.
ddebernardy 8y ago
The relevant stakeholders are elected, or nominated or hired by elected officials. And as already pointed out in a sibling answer, there kind of is such an office already in some sense. The core of the problem is that if you try to introduce an extra layer of bureaucratic oversight, one might expect an outcry over it being technocratic or wasteful. So it's unfortunately not simple. (However much your viewpoint makes sense IMHO.)