←back to thread

At Least 13 People Died by Suicide Amid U.K. Post Office Scandal, Report Says

(www.nytimes.com)
631 points xbryanx | 2 comments | 11 Jul 25 11:56 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
akudha ◴[11 Jul 25 14:03 UTC] No.44532288[source]▶
This was depressing to read. Failures at so many levels.

1. Immediately after Horizon was rolled out, issues were reported. But ignored

2. Prosecutors didn't bother to verify if there is another explanation before accusing thousands of people of stealing? Isn't it common sense to pause for a second and think, "could we please double check the evidence? how can thousands of postal workers suddenly turn into thieves?"

3. local newspaper had published a photo of her and labeled her the “pregnant thief.” - of course, UK tabloids. Click baits and write whatever the fuck they want, no matter whose lives are destroyed

4. post office has said that it does not have the means to provide redress for that many people - so they have the means to falsely prosecute and destroy the lives of thousands of people, but they don't have the means to correct their blunders?

This happened more than a decade ago. Citizens are expected to do everything on time (pay taxes, renew drivers license...) or get fined/jailed, but the government can sit on their butt for 10 YEARS and do nothing about a blunder they caused?

What about Fujitsu? Why can't the government make Fujitsu pay for the destruction caused by their shitty software?

Jeez. This is just fucking nuts

replies(9): >>44532458 #>>44532620 #>>44532731 #>>44532787 #>>44533037 #>>44533826 #>>44535067 #>>44537287 #>>44542349 #
s_dev ◴[11 Jul 25 14:46 UTC] No.44532731[source]▶
>2. Prosecutors didn't bother to verify if there is another explanation before accusing thousands of people of stealing? Isn't it common sense to pause for a second and think, "could we please double check the evidence? how can thousands of postal workers suddenly turn into thieves?"

They genuinely thought that the new software was uncovering a lot of theft that previously went undetected. This actually spurred them on even further thinking that the software was a godsend.

The sickening part is the people responsible won't ever see the inside of a prison cell despite sending many to prison for their failures.

replies(1): >>44533692 #
wat10000 ◴[11 Jul 25 15:58 UTC] No.44533692[source]▶
Rationalization is a powerful force. People rarely come to objective beliefs based on evidence. They come to beliefs and then search for evidence. In law enforcement, people tend to decide on a suspect and then look for proof. Hence why you so often see prosecutors and police fighting to punish innocent people, sometimes even after they've been proven to be innocent.
replies(1): >>44534053 #
akudha ◴[11 Jul 25 16:24 UTC] No.44534053{3}[source]▶
In law enforcement, people tend to decide on a suspect and then look for proof.

Yikes, such people shouldn't be in working in law enforcement then

replies(1): >>44534904 #
flir ◴[11 Jul 25 17:32 UTC] No.44534904{4}[source]▶
Everyone does it. You and me too. It's just how brains work. First the opinion, then the evidence to back up the opinion.
replies(2): >>44535486 #>>44536828 #
1. akudha ◴[11 Jul 25 18:28 UTC] No.44535486{5}[source]▶
Maybe everyone does it at some level, but not everyone works in a job that has the potential to wreck other people's lives and freedoms. There should be a higher standard for doctors, prosecutors, cops, judges etc than someone writing a todo CRUD app or a cashier at a bodega.

It is not too much to ask for prosecutors to be a bit more careful, bit more factual, understand the powers that come with their position and use it wisely. If they are not able to do that, they should pick some other profession which has lesser potential to cause damage than law enforcement.

Also - now that the software has proven defective, are they doing to go after Fujitsu or those who tested/signed off on the software? Probably not, maybe they will find a scapegoat at best.

replies(1): >>44536152 #
2. wat10000 ◴[11 Jul 25 19:44 UTC] No.44536152[source]▶
Law enforcement could definitely do better here. The nature of the job tends to attract people who like exerting power over others, and I imagine that correlates with deciding people are guilty first, and finding evidence later.

But everybody is like this to an extent, so you need to fix this in other ways too. This is why reasonable countries have a whole bunch of process around legal punishment, and don't just throw someone in prison after a police officer says so. All the restrictions on how evidence is gathered and what kind of proof needs to be provided are ways to work around this problem. The police and prosecutor might decide someone is guilty, but they still have to convince twelve ordinary people. (Or whatever the process is in your country of choice.)

It sounds like this is where things really fell apart with the postal scandal, and the courts were willing to convict with insufficient evidence.