4 ms·

Your question makes a good point. Punishment is only effective at the bottom of the funnel. A well designed system, whether a computer or an organization shoul

Your question makes a good point. Punishment is only effective at the bottom of the funnel. A well designed system, whether a computer or an organization should always have controls that guide things to where they should be. That means carrots and sticks. In a place like a post office, that means separation of duties, audit, and clear lines of accountability. Things fail when nobody asks awkward questions or looks. I do think that leadership responsible for a debacle like this must be punished. Their incompetence destroyed lives of innocent people.

zzbn00 3y ago
In principle there was already some separation of duty as solictors in England owe a duty to the Court regardless of who pays them. However it seems not to have been enough in this case. Hopefully will be looked into.
- etothepii 3y ago
  I think you mean barristers. The problem here was that as many sub-postmasters were co owned by a husband and wife with children. There was an enormous incentive for one of the sub post masters to plead guilty and say, "my wife had nothing to do with it." Doubly so as the sentences would often be on the cusp of the "suspendible range", a guilty plea combined with contrition is much more likely to get a judge to suspend your sentence if he can. Of course, this "plea-bargaining" is standard practice in the states but we aren't used to it in the UK. The issue is that no barrister would allow their client to plead guilty without giving them a little canned speech about not pleading guilty if they didn't do it and having them, "sign their brief".
  - zzbn00 3y ago
    I meant the solictor of the Post Office -- solicitors in England are both classified as officers of the court and owe duties to the Court. So amongst other things Post Office's own solicitors should have declined to act in any way that could mislead the court.

zzbn00 3y ago

In principle there was already some separation of duty as solictors in England owe a duty to the Court regardless of who pays them. However it seems not to have been enough in this case. Hopefully will be looked into.

etothepii 3y ago
I think you mean barristers. The problem here was that as many sub-postmasters were co owned by a husband and wife with children. There was an enormous incentive for one of the sub post masters to plead guilty and say, "my wife had nothing to do with it." Doubly so as the sentences would often be on the cusp of the "suspendible range", a guilty plea combined with contrition is much more likely to get a judge to suspend your sentence if he can. Of course, this "plea-bargaining" is standard practice in the states but we aren't used to it in the UK. The issue is that no barrister would allow their client to plead guilty without giving them a little canned speech about not pleading guilty if they didn't do it and having them, "sign their brief".
- zzbn00 3y ago
  I meant the solictor of the Post Office -- solicitors in England are both classified as officers of the court and owe duties to the Court. So amongst other things Post Office's own solicitors should have declined to act in any way that could mislead the court.