Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjk166 | Hacker News Reader

No, that's still presumption of guilt.

If you're going to convict someone of stealing £59,000, the very first thing you should have to show is that £59,000 actually got stolen. If there is reasonable doubt that the crime took place, no one can be guilty beyond that reasonable doubt. If the defendant claims the computer system got it wrong, it's not enough to say you are unaware of bugs, the prosecution should have to show that the computer's output was consistent with the results of doing the calculation by another method.

View on HN

Not only that £59,000 was actually stolen but that the accused received the money. There was no evidence that the post masters charged ever had the money in their possession!

What you are both arguing doesn't match up with the facts. It was proved beyond reasonable doubt multiple times. The "proof", (which we now know was flawed) was that the system had shown that what they had sold didn't tally with what was sent to the Post Office, to refute that proof, the defence have to show another plausible explanation.

Yes, if they could have proved they also received what was stolen, that would have been a slam dunk but there are enough plausible reasons why they can't find the money. Maybe it was given to friends and family as cash, maybe it was used to gamble or to pay off some criminal.

It isn't much different than somebody saying, "you did it because we found your DNA". The Courts or Jury are inclined to believe it because "science" and if the defence are not on their game enough to show how "because DNA" is not always watertight, the defendent is seen as guilty beyond reasonbale doubt.

> but there are enough plausible reasons why they can't find the money

There is a strange presumption in here. It is true that lack of evidence doesn't always means there's evidence that there was no crime. But that shouldn't matter. A crime should only be prosecutable if it is demonstrable. We shouldn't say "oh, well the prosecution had a really hard case, we should just convict this person anyway because it wasn't fair to those lawyers." That's such a perverse way of reasoning about it.

> Yes, if they could have proved they also received what was stolen, that would have been a slam dunk but there are enough plausible reasons why they can't find the money. Maybe it was given to friends and family as cash, maybe it was used to gamble or to pay off some criminal.

If this was one or two cases, then sure, maybe they were really smart about hiding the money. However, there were hundreds of convictions. What is the more likely explanation?

"The "proof", ..what they had sold didn't tally with what was sent to the Post Office"

Post office looses packages all the time, should someone go to jail for that too?

If their stuff doesn't tally, they are disorganised, they loose stuff or have idiots. Thats their problem. Maybe it's post office employees stealing shit.

Why do we immediately assume postmasters have abything to do with it without a shred of evidence?

> The "proof", (which we now know was flawed) was that the system had shown that what they had sold didn't tally with what was sent to the Post Office

No, it claimed that what they had sold didn't tally, a claim they never proved. The defense put forward another plausible explanation - that the software was incorrect, and the prosecution obviously didn't prove the software was accurate.

Even if the computer was right and there was a genuine discrepancy in the tally, you then need to prove that this person was the one responsible for it. Certainly in this case, there couldn't possibly have been sufficient evidence to prove they were the ones that did it if it was never done to begin with. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but it sure as hell isn't proof of presence.

In the "we found your DNA" analogy, you're finding my DNA in my workplace where nothing has actually gone missing - how does that prove I am guilty of theft?

> Not only that £59,000 was actually stolen but that the accused received the money.

Can only speak for English and Welsh law, but this isn't accurate. Theft is prosecuted under the Theft Act 1968 and does not require the accused to actually receive the goods or money stolen. All the accused need do to "appropriate" property is assume the rights of the owner e.g, if the accused had access to someone's bank account and they sent money to a third-party, that's still theft because they assumed the rights of the owner (to transfer the money) even though the money didn't go to the accused themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com