> The biggest issue isn't the software glitch system.
I disagree, the software glitch was the problem here.
We are supposed to be able to rely on computers to store and add numbers or report a system failure. This accounting software showed in black and white that some funds that the sub-postmasters were responsible for had gone missing.
What else was the legal system supposed to do? The broken software was simulating crime perfectly.
Absolutely wrong. Mistakes happen. Bugs, fat fingers, laziness, hangovers--whether by human or machine, errors occur. The legal system was supposed to uncover the facts. Because of the Post Office coverup, the judges were told "
no, there are no bugs. No, nobody has remote access to these terminals. Yes, the only possible way these figures could turn up is through theft." This despite the fact that at least one Post Office inspector explicitly wrote in a report that there was no evidence of theft. The legal system failed to penetrate the veil of lies and find the truth. That's a legal systemic failure.
It wasn't though. If the post office enforcers had taken even a cursory look at the transactions around the 'thefts', they would have noticed obvious errors. One of the bugs basically just duplicated a close-of-day transaction, sometimes many times. This would obviously have looked like an error, it would be a stupid way to commit fraud. It was obvious that the Post Office just preferred to extort money out of the postmasters as opposed to actually work out what was going on (as evidenced by the bonuses for successful payments or convictions)
> I disagree, the software glitch was the problem here
Except it wasn't; the main problem was how the PO was handling it. ICL/Fujitsu were aware of near-identical bugs in an earlier project[1], and PO employees omitted parts of an audit from 2004 that described similar issues as well[2]
It all goes back to ICL/Fujitsu and the PO being aware of the issue and withholding the information from anyone not already "in the know"; lawyers, judges, changing witness statements to hide incriminating evidence, etc.
I think if a handful of people had been prosecuted then it would still be an outrage but understandable. But this was hundreds of cases. I think the legal system has some responsibility for not maybe thinking "Huh, what are the chances of so many previously law abiding people all committing the same crime in the same time period?".
I disagree, the software glitch was the problem here.
We are supposed to be able to rely on computers to store and add numbers or report a system failure. This accounting software showed in black and white that some funds that the sub-postmasters were responsible for had gone missing.
What else was the legal system supposed to do? The broken software was simulating crime perfectly.