4 ms·
> The bad software was just one part of the input to that decision. To play devil's advocate was there evidence of malfeasance besides the software? If not, i
by rileymat2 6y ago
> The bad software was just one part of the input to that decision.
To play devil's advocate was there evidence of malfeasance besides the software?
If not, it is a bit disingenuous to say that the software did not send them to jail. If it was a witness who was mistaken and that was the only evidence, in standard english, we would say the witness sent them to jail.
- mitchdoogle 6y agoSaying it was the software absolves others of responsibility. If anyone knew it was buggy and went forth prosecuting these individuals anyway, they themselves should be sent to jail for criminal negligence.
- NelsonMinar 6y agoYes. I'm not going to summarize it for you. Read the articles that are the original reporting. They contain many details of the post office knowing they had problems and covering them up, allowing folks to be prosecuted rather than to own up to IT problems. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56859357 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56859357 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52905378 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52905378 Also please don't post leading comments as being "devil's advocate". It's the laziest form of rhetoric, "just asking questions".
- tome 6y agoI think you've taken rileymat2's comment the opposite way than was intended.
- IshKebab 6y agoIf you knew that witness was unreliable and you still prosecuted based on that witness, and covered up evidence you had of their unreliability...