4 ms·
> I think a lot of "normal" people like the idea of holding corporates accountable but how would that actually work? Exactly which specific problem is "holdin
by rlpb 6y ago
> I think a lot of "normal" people like the idea of holding corporates accountable but how would that actually work?
Exactly which specific problem is "holding corporates accountable" trying to fix?
If it's that postmasters were being falsely convicted, then the way to fix that is to raise the burden of proof significantly. I hope this case has done that, and next time a court will not accept "computer says so".
With that fixed, the corporates would have to take the (falsely reported) losses; they wouldn't be able to pass it on to the postmasters like they did. Then the consequences of the problem will remain with the people responsible.
Is that sufficient?
- rectang 6y agoNo, it is not sufficient. The problem is that it is possible to design malicious systems which through incentives, ensure that illegal acts will take place, yet only low-level actors are ever punished. The people who architected the systems and made the decisions statistically guaranteeing illegal activity escape punishment through plausible deniability and abscond with their ill-gotten gains. Besides this scandal, see the failure to punish any executives after the 2007 crash, or Carrie Tolstedt and John Stumpf of Wells Fargo who even after clawbacks retired tens of millions of dollars ahead, etc.