It's going to be the one(s) that screw it all up for the many.

All it's going to take is one criminal in your program to go out and kill and rob an elderly couple for society to force the politicians to end your noble and well-meaning experiment and put those people back behind bars.

I've seen it over and over in my many years of being locked up...programs designed to give inmates and convicts a shot at bettering themselves are totally abused by a few totally selfish and uncaring dickwads that actually enjoy the fact they just fucked it up for everyone else.

But regardless of that, I think your program holds great promise and wish you nothing but success with it.

Coming from a European perspective I find it utterly perplexing that a society would not only accept high rates of incarceration but also support venture capital to optimize that status quo. Because that's what is being offered - making it affordable for poor people to go into custody, as opposed to lobbying against private prisons and extreme sentences for trivial crimes, and disentangling this horrific 'tough on crime' narrative that has taken hold over the past decades. How on earth is it positive to see an opportunity for profit in all the people being locked up before trial and to what end will that investment be pursued?

It's fascinating that many viewpoints from the US are so exceptional in their notion that they completely ignore how systems in other countries tackle the problem without generating a criminal underclass.

EDIT: I should also note that it's nice to see teams are trying tackling to tackle harder social problems.

What does that mean? How do you know we have too many? Are you claiming we have many innocent people who haven't broken the law in jail? Or that some laws prescribe incommensurate penalties for certain crimes?

The US leads the world in incarceration, with a rate of 737 per 100,000.

Canada has 438 per 100,000... and on virtual all measures Canada and the US are very similar (old joke... What is a Canadian? An unarmed American with healthcare).

Amazingly the UK is 148 per 100,000, Scotland 134, N.Ireland 79, Ireland 78, and Australia 168.

Is the problem really with the criminal justice system, or is it with the laws, perhaps even just the sentencing laws?

FWIW I am firmly against, disgusted by, the extremely elevated incarceration rates in the US -- especially those incarcerated for "non-violent crimes" -- but I tend to think that the issue is more with the laws (sentencing, plea-bargaining, due process, etc) than it is with the prosecutors themselves.

Of course there are bad apples too, from judges to prosecutors to defendants themselves, but I tend to see more issue with the disconnected legislation than I do anything else.

Heck, the US AG wants to crack down on marijuana -- despite numerous state ballot initiatives legalizing it at state levels. Meanwhile, there's a serious opioid epidemic which is killing thousands of people; 'crackdown' is failing to address that problem. I know, let's crack down on marijuana too -- throw them all in jail, that's the way to save lives. It just blatantly defies logic or basic reasoning. :(

Having worked with statistics around this issue and compared them with many other countries, I don't think this is the case. The USA seems to have two problems: A very, unusual high crime rate (about 10 times higher than in the country where I live for example!) and by comparison, a very harsh jurisdictional system. Combined, you get the result you have.

It's definitely not an either/or thing. You can bring up some bad laws, I can bring up some bad features of the criminal justice system, and we can go on forever. There are issues with both. Consider the bail system, where many poor folk who are simply accused of a crime are left to rot in prison because they can't come up with the cash. While they are in jail, they can't work. While they can't work, they can't pay bills. If they can't pay bills, their car gets repossessed. Even if this person walks free, they can't get to work without a car, and the cycle will probably happen again. Eventually, an overworked public defender will not be able to help.

There are other factors as well. Consider the for-profit prisons and the politicians who are lobbied to implement them.

Role of the incarceration is 1) incapacitation, at a bare minimum prevent continuing criminal activity; 2) Rehabilitation, in so far as causes and proclivities toward criminal activity can be remediated, do so; 3) Punishment, enjoying the rewards of criminality offend our sense of fairness.

The problem is (3) seems to be the only one we're capable of...

The urge for long prison sentences can be explained by reasons 1, 2 and 4.

And I guess reason 3 as well; the longer someone is incarcerated, the longer they will have to think about what they did wrong and how to fix their life.

note: I don't believe that longer sentences are effective for any of those reasons, but others do

That's not the purpose of the justice system per se, though I don't see any problem with someone offering criminals, in the spirit of charity, opportunities and help in turning away from criminality toward good ways of living. (Obviously, they must be willing, and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking criminals are victims.) However, justice implies that retribution and punishment are merited, and if merited, then legitimately inflicted. If it didn't, mercy and forgiveness would be meaningless. Indeed, crime and evil actions would cease to have any substance. A justice system that does not punish in a manner that is commensurate with crimes committed is no justice system at all. The word "retribution" for some reason offends modern sensibilities. Part of that stems from what appears to be the false belief that retribution entails hatred, which it does not.

If there are flaws in the justice system because either the punishments for some crimes are excessive, or innocent people are being convicted at high rates and possibly because of perverse incentives, or whatever, then those things need to be addressed. But I do not support a generally lenient attitude toward crime in the spirit of Norway's treatment of Breivik. That that unrepentant criminal is alive and in relative comfort is a sickening insult to his victims.

However, if the intention of a justice system is to reduce the total amount of injustice done in the world, then punishment is surprisingly ineffective.

Being a criminal does not _preclude_ a person from also being a victim. People who inflict violence have very, very often experienced a great deal of violence against themselves. In these cases, punishment is going to do far more harm than good in society. Harsh punishment, especially incarceration, makes pre-existing issues much worse. It creates recidivism, and increases the total amount of injustice over the long term. Compassion, support, empathy, education, and carefully guided opportunity to improve would, in many of these cases, improve that person's circumstance to a point where they no longer have cause to harm others. The original victims may not have received the recompense that they deserve, but the likelihood of more people experiencing pain at the criminal's hand in the future is reduced.

So it's not quite as simple as all one way or all the other. I think that is why the raw concept of 'retribution' is a less desirable idea these days than it has been in the past. It makes the demands of individual balance at the expense of community balance.

Don't get me wrong, I think that ignoring individual balance outright in favour of community balance is equally flawed. The trick is providing lots of options, so that someone like a judge can make the call as to where that balancing point should be and be confident that it is played out.

This.

Retribution is a terrible way to run things. "The law is reason free from passion."

https://theamericanscholar.org/death-by-treacle/

"One of the first victim impact statements made outside a civil courtroom was that of the mother of actress Sharon Tate, who was murdered in 1969 by Charles Manson and his family. At the time of Manson’s 1978 parole hearing in California no state specifically allowed victim statements in criminal cases—those brought by government and “We the People.” Today, however, they are a routine part of the sentencing and parole process in every state. According to advocates, they allow victims to personalize the crime and elevate the status of the victim by describing the effect the crime has had on them or their families. Some laud the courtroom ritual as an aid in the emotional recovery of the victim, with the criminal proceeding envisioned as part of a larger therapeutic process. A few legal scholars suggest that the well-intentioned personalization of a crime can blur the line between public justice and private retribution. Conversely, does a criminal deserve a more lenient sentence if his victim was someone of so little charm or social worth that he had no one to testify movingly for him? Of course, rape charges used to be mitigated on just such grounds, that the victim had so little virtue or sexual morals that the crime against her didn’t mean as much."

So, to the extent that the justice sistem can identify truly antisocial crime (and not ridiculous offenses like 5y mandatory minimums for weed), making the criminals suffer sets a strong social example: if you perpetrate this particularly heinous crime, you will a pay a price so high that it will not be worth it.

And since, by definition, only a fraction of criminals will be caught, those that are caught must suffer extra to asymptotically balance the risk/reward ratio - if I get caught stealing I don't just compensate the victim for the stolen good, thereby "paying my dues", that will just motivate me to get better at stealing. Rather, the penalty should completely obliterate any gains I could hope to make in a successful thieving career, and then some, to dissuade me to go down that path in the first place.

Rehabilitation is an important concern, but it's only secondary to the primary goal of the justice system, making crime not worthwhile. If all I get for running over people while drunk is an obligation to go to AA meetings, then the drunk driving law becomes irrelevant, you might as well leave it to the individual conscience.

I believe you can safely entrust the evaluation of the Breivik case to the Norwegians, who - judicially - came through the thing with absolutely flying colors as a civilized and rational society, not as a religiously infused flashmob baying for blood.

"We need to figure out who we're afraid of and who we're angry at."

I wish you guys all the best.

I bet that these ppl will be your biggest obstacles. You should operate with the expectation that they will do everything in their power to protect their intrest. "Saving taxpayers money" literally means "removing it from their bottom line".

That said, I wish you much success! I wish more startups figured out creative ways to align their business models with the real issues affecting society.

Why would I have faith in your start up if you can't even get this right?

No one is talking about to stop them...

This would show that the hypothetical "one that killed an ederly couple" is one member out of the, say, 250k members that are in this program.

By having public numbers, it would show the benefits vs problems and provide a more empathic view on it.

How exactly did you manage that?

Edit I’m not judging them, just pointing out the most likely cause of being incarcerated so frequently in the USA.

Despite the usefulness of prison in your case, there is plenty of research showing that alternative means to incarceration are better for everybody (for the offenders and the taxpayers). For example, this paper shows a drop of 40% in recidivism for electronic monitoring instead of incarceration: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15602. Also, there is a lot of evidence from drug courts. This is one example: https://crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=70.

I am not affiliated with Promise.

There's just very many ways that going to prison hurts a person and very few ways that helps, and only for the right kind of people too (ex: longterm drug abuser with a lack of self control relinquishing his rights in this case).

Also, there are other ways to break a cycle of addiction. Prison isn't the only way, nor even a particularly recommended way.

I'm glad you got free of your addiction. Religious types might chalk this up to "the good lord moves in mysterious ways."

But I don't see any reason why your story should be viewed as an argument against their work.

It is especially hard to think about bettering yourself and getting help when you're around countless other people basically glorifying the problem from which you suffer.

Speaking to someone who had recently been released, he talked about people shooting up in the car two minutes after being released. Friends and sometimes even family members would be there to meet them at their release and would bring along drugs for them to consume at the first possible instant as some kind of "welcome back" present.

The obvious centuries-old solution of government-managed prisons is useless for that.

Looking into the future, I have a worry that governments will be able to back Promise into a corner. When many participants are dependent on Promise for their freedom from jail, won't governments be in a position to dictate Promise's feature set? I fear that governments will demand ever more intrusive monitoring and draconian control over participants' lives, and Promise will be unable to say no, as the alternative would put them all back in jail.

In other words, the bargain of surveillance instead of jail time may start out being a big win, but it seems at risk of getting worse over time with pressure only in one direction (towards ever-increasing surveillance and control) and no countervailing pressure in the other direction. Does Promise have ways to generate that countervailing pressure? Does it have guiding principles as to what kinds of surveillance and control it considers ethical? Does it have bright lines that it will not cross? Have you thought about how Promise can gain or wield the political power it needs to stay true to its principles?

Thanks.

If the former, then what are we going to do about it? Enforced income equality programs have been quite disastrous in human history. If the latter, well, yes, it's a weird way to get around the fact that the state technically cannot be locking people up that aren't convicted of a crime yet. And for the poor, it very well may be that the choice is between jail and something like Promise.

What are the lines you will not cross?

Have you seen https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/new-frontier-e-carcera..., and would you be willing to commit to the recommended guidelines at http://centerformediajustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/...?

The issue with privatization is that a public relations person can tell you one thing today, they can do another thing tomorrow, and all that matters is turning a profit.

These are not stupid questions but you’re still wasting your time asking them. If you want trustworthy answers, your only option is to deprivatize and elect officials based on honesty and merit.

Public Benefit Corporations, as well as Nonprofit Corporation, are possible, and will provide some assurance that the company doesnt turn evil tomorrow.

Do you have a plan for how to help addicts and people with mental illness? Or is that outside your scope?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/inmates-heroin_us_56966...

Naloxone/Narcan is for immediate treatment of an overdose

Are participants required to have a smartphone to install the app to be a part of the release program?

If it works it looks like it could have a positive impact. How ever I have a few concerns/questions

1. How will the incentives be aligned? More people standing trial = larger potential market.

2. This is a false dichotomy. “Not having to deal with foundations”

There are other models that do not require you to take donor funding. Take a look at the model by Muhammad Yunus[0] or writing by Porter on shared value [1]. For e.g one could generate cash flow for expenses without having investors looking for a return.

3. While a profit motive can be useful to encourage innovation and competitiveness, this can have negative consequences. For e.g in this case what is good for business is not necessarily good for society.(more suspects)

4. Would you consider this a fundamental solution?

5. What outcome are you after?

6. Is there a way to prevent people even Being suspected of a crime? Preventing them committing a crime?

7. Using leverage points from Donella Meadows [2] Where does this fall?

8. Have you looked at systems theory? Very useful for really complex social challenges like the one you are trying to tackle acumen has a free course. [3].

8. Is this solution a short term one with a more long term(fundamental) plan for the future?

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grameen_Bank

[1] https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points

[3] https://www.plusacumen.org/courses/systems-practice

I have a hard time seeing how you can align the incentives of a business like this with greater societal interests.

Their association with Y Combinator doesn't help with that impression. How many other venture funded start ups exist to provide a societal benefit while making only a modest return? Isn't the goal a big exit?

They might not be venture funded yet, but they aren't at Y Combinator for the coffee, right? I know this sounds super cynical, so please tell me why I'm wrong. Why is this a good thing?

YC has a non-profits program. https://www.ycombinator.com/nonprofits/

I don't see any indication that Promise is going non-profit, though.

This is amazingly uninformed. Let’s stop pretending private businesses were born yesterday and just consult history. Privatization of human rights is despicable and this is not a lesson that needs to be learned again. Do you know why we never had private prisons before? They incentivize corruption of the most vulnerable fabric of our society. No excuse.

No, but we should learn from those mistakes, right?

When a company makes money from prisoners and more prisoners mean more money, then the incentives are a problem.

You mean, before 1852?

The private prison industry routinely lobbies for higher fines & longer sentences because it is to their benefit to have more people go to prison. Promise appears to have a similar incentive.

(municipalities simply won't write contracts with big rewards tied to incarceration or recidivism rates)

Eg, Promise is only paid if the prisoner doesn't go back to prison?

This would perhaps ascribe a number for level of difficulty, and an initial estimate for how hard the case is.

Keep in mind that a convicted offender on the streets may suffer from a potential for revenge and retaliation, and thus is possibly safer in jail, however horrible jail may be. This would augment a recidivism predictor further, if you cannot isolate them from their victims, should victims be bitter about the perception of your service lacking punitive action.

It's easy to keep getting confused around if we're dealing with accused criminals or convicted felons, as both are in jail. Sounds like Promise is focusing on the accused.

I wouldn't be real surprised if their initial targets are places that have large, established probation systems, offering the tech as an aid to government employed probation officers. Easier than taking on legal responsibility for the probationers.

If you were recruiting new staff positions for this startup I don't see how the job functions for the persons interacting with the "clients" are much different from a parole officer. Just with more "web 2.0" technology, IoT tech for ankle tracking bracelets, etc.

You could just have created a non-profit and reinvest all money - way easier to scale. Values mean shit to the shareholders who invested in you :) They care about returns. I can only image what kind of monsters are born when blindly hunting for profit. Actually, I don't have to imagine, I just need to look at the current for-profit rehabilitation industry. Not saying you're the same, you're probably not but you will at some point yield decision power to the for-profit interest of the company. And let's assume this picks up and becomes immensely successful. What's stopping the company from hiring lobbyists to support legislation which keeps people 'in the system'?

Ref: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-benefit_corporation

For background:

A Public Benefit Corporation makes it explicit legally for corporations to act morally, ethically and responsibly in regard to society, the environment, the natural world and the world at large.

The Certificate of Incorporation must list the company's altruistic goals and overall mission statement. However, in every other manner, the structure of a Public Benefit Corporation can mirror the structure of any type of Corporation.

Why couldn't the same thing be done to solve this problem, especially given your concern for eliminating perverse incentives in the justice system?

The smartphone question is important. I wonder if an inexpensive device custom built can replace it.

I think that's splitting a lot of hairs. If working with Promise is a condition of release, it's possible (and likely) that Promise now has the power to send you to prison if they deem you non-compliant with your release terms.

We have pretty clear examples of how for-profit criminal justice can go wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

(I completely agree, and sare the same concerns - Especially given the precedent of US incarceration and private entity involvement, which many would consider slavery. However...)

On a long term scale, I believe that Capitalism will become more trustworthy and aligned with demand than government.

Or at the very least, Capitalism will 'pave the road', and hand off to a socialist system upon maturity and consensus.

While the free market is (in its pure form) money driven (ignoring externalities), we appear to be in a new age of enlightenment. I believe that this is bringing about a new form of capitalism which provides a platform for ethics.

In essence, this boils down to "Government is too slow to legislate and bring about change, and doesn't accurately reflect views. The people are tired of waiting and not being listened to, and will turn to the free market for the supply they want".

If Promise and other companies are able to hold themselves accountable to their customers, governing bodies (eventually), but most importantly the population at large (contributing in a meritocratic way), I can see this a) working very well, b) far more quickly than any other system, and c) innovating and maturing components ready for adoption by government.

The alternative could be waiting 50 years or an entire lifetime to get the change people want. Plan B to me would be governments launching online platforms for democratic (and later, technocratic/meritocratic) referendum systems on a local/small level, then with trust delegating decisions more and more to citizens.

Hard to justify all the above succinctly, so I presume this will not be convincing to all. Would love to hear Promise's opinions on this.

(1) I am always concerned about start ups with hugely impactful products that seem to lack rigor around their technology. This one will be part of determining who gets what care or who gets sent to jail. Where's the evidence that Promise will make this decision better?

(2) It seems like streamlining and increasing the ability of governments to monitor parolees. Is a warrant going to be automatically issued to someone breaking curfew because they're visiting their sick mother?

(3) It lowers the barrier into the criminal justice system. Promise says they are designed to help the criminal which makes it more attractive for judges to place people, especially juveniles, into the system.

It seems like the founders want to make a positive impact on society, but there's a whole lot of slippery slope and other ethical issues here.

This is the cavalier attitude that concerns me. If we are talking about predicting what wines people like than saying we believe scale will be critical is fine. When talking about something that will have a major impact on the lives of unwilling participants, you'd like to see at least some rigor.

> (2) Parolees are post conviction. We are focused on people who are incarcerated pre trial because they cannot afford bail.

People being Parolees or on bail doesn't make a difference to my point.

> (3) This is not what we said but really helpful to understand that is how it reads.

You don't think the care plan Promise creates will have a positive impact on those that go through the program?

The parent said that qualitative and quantitative analysis will be used, and that technology is not the only solution. That is hardly cavalier imo.

What rigor would look like to me is something like:

(1) Do a historical analysis of who skips court and why.

(2) Come up with a plausible intervention strategy to solve problems identified in (1)

(3) Test your strategy in a well designed pilot and calculate it's effectiveness

(4) Validate your pilot results on a larger scale

(5) Offer your product commercially nationwide

Your calendar thing might be useful. But not as a part of the bail system. Bail must go.

Is there any public post, news, or data available yet on the work you're doing in Kentucky?

I like that you are trying to help the people on the other end of that curve.

It's not that clear from the information presented though.

I also assume that they intend to be presented as an alternative to a prison sentence, if the judge is so persuaded. Just having a track record of compliance with Promise before any sentencing happens would probably be quite helpful.

I think this is one of the neater startups I've seen. However, privatized jails/prisons seem to be rife with abuse... privatizing parole seems like it would suffer the same temptations.

I'm not with Promise, but let me tackle this one.

What currently decides which suspects stay in jail? Two things: a judge that sets (or denies) a bail price, and the ability of the suspect to pay that price, either directly or through a bond. What this means is that, as mentioned in the OP, the poor, who will be most strongly affected by being unable to work before their trial, are also those who will be most likely unable to pay their bond.

I would also like more information on how Promise will determine who will be eligible for their services, but whatever the process is, if it means that any number of people are able to continue working and helping their family as opposed to rotting away in a concrete box just because they can't pay to bail out, it's absolutely a net win.

https://cs.stanford.edu/~jure/pubs/bail-qje17.pdf

I agree that there is a huge need for reform in the system. My point is what evidence is Promise relying on when they promise to make improvements? Why should I think they're better and how are we going to verify in 1, 5, or 10 years that they are?

So if a bail bond company grants a bond to someone and they rape someone, is the bail bond company at fault? Or the judge that permitted them to bail out?

And I'm willing to bet that for each person who commits a serious crime while out on this program, they will have hundreds, possibly thousands of people that don't - that are able to continue working and providing for their family when they otherwise wouldn't. Still an absolutely massive net win.

Harsh(er) punishments are an effective deterrent, and if they don’t deter they should be harsh enough to wipe out offenders through attrition. Eg, shoplifting with 2 hands is easy, with 1 hand is difficult, and with 0 hands is nearly impossible.

Yes, absolutely. It's part of the judge's job to make some initial assessment of risk and set bail accordingly (or deny it entirely). For example, if the charge is murder, bail is automatically denied.

Not at all. Some judges may have that policy, and perhaps some state laws require it (though that would arguably not be constitutional and a violation of the separation of powers), but it's not certain that someone up on murder charges would not be able to bail out.

At any rate, the point is that if someone who has been charged - just charged, not convicted; remember, we're all supposed to be pretending people are innocent until proven guilty here - with a crime commits a crime before their conviction, the fault lies only on that person and that person alone, not on anyone else - and certainly not the judge.

> At any rate, the point is that if someone who has been charged - just charged, not convicted

Agree completely. But if we are not making some estimation of the possibility of guilt and possible behavior by a guilty party given freedom then what is the point of ever denying bail? We deny bail because they might be guilty, and if they are it might not be safe for them to be released. We're not saying that they are guilty, but conceding that it might be negligent to allow them freedom before determining their guilt.

> the fault lies only on that person and that person alone

I'm certainly not trying to absolve the perpetrator, but certainly from an ethical point of view at least (IANAL) you have to admit the possibility of negligence.

Bail is, btw, almost certainly unconstitutional and should be abolished. It's one of those things that slipped through the cracks and was kind of grandfathered in. The Supreme Court has ruled again and again that in a system where persons are presumed innocent any sort of pre-conviction punishment by the state (fines, excessive jail, forced hospitalization) is not allowed. Somehow though the judge has the power to declare somebody a flight risk and order them held until trial. This is a little mitigated by the right to a speedy trial but is still likely wrong.

Had the framers wanted to prohibit bail, the 8th Amendment would be one word shorter; as it is, only excessive bail is unconstitutional.

That's actually my biggest fear with private services like Promise — a new for-profit bandaid both reduces the pressure to reform the underlying system just as it is gathering real steam, and creates a new set of parties with a profit interest in preserving the underlying system.

Bail, or it's denial, is principally about the risk of the accused not showing up to court, and thereby escaping legal process; the type of crime is also considered, but again that's mostly (but not entirely) because it factors into risk to the process (both motivation to avoid process and risk of violence directed at witnesses, etc.)

It's not a matter of fault. It's a matter of who is going to do a better job at granting bail. Promise or a Judge?

Promise says that they can, which in most tech start ups is enough. If we find out 5 years later that your algorithm sucks at, say, picking out clothes for someone, who cares? You go out of business and some people will have gotten worse clothes. If Promise's algorithm sucks then in 5 years later we will have a bunch of additional crime victims on our hands.

>And I'm willing to bet that for each person who commits a serious crime while out on this program, they will have hundreds, possibly thousands of people that don't - that are able to continue working and providing for their family when they otherwise wouldn't. Still an absolutely massive net win.

How will we know you are right? The things that Promise does are the things that should end up as peer reviewed journal articles. That's the point of my question. How is anyone going to know that Promise is working?

Promise would not be replacing the function of a judge here. That's ludicrous. The judge would be permitting a suspect to work with Promise's system rather than rotting in jail.

> How is anyone going to know that Promise is working?

When people are able to work and take care of their families who would otherwise be sitting in a concrete box, waiting for time to pass.

Even if their risk assessment plays no role in who gets bail, they still are involved with major decisions impacting people's lives so the point still stands. Which, after three posts you still haven't really addressed. What evidence does Promise have that their product will make things better? This isn't really something you give the old college try and hope to find success.

>When people are able to work and take care of their families who would otherwise be sitting in a concrete box, waiting for time to pass.

And how are we going to know that is happening? This is the type of stuff that is done with controlled experiments resulting in peer reviewed journal articles.

That is, if you have resources you can get out without Promise, Promise just helps those that were already deemed not a risk to the community by the Judge find a method of spending the weeks/months leading up to their trial still being able to lead a semi-normal life and not incarcerated and not have to have significant financial resources to do so.

That would be a big deal, but I don't see that in the OP or their website. Can you quote where they say that is what they are pitching?

That said, there is a comment that clarifies that this is at least one area they are looking at:

The fundamental issue is that we are focusing on poor people who are bail eligible and incarcerated only because they cannot afford bail. [1]

That said, they could try to expand beyond that. In addition, this additional comment means a lot of what I said, and others have said, may not quite be accurate, at least in the future:

It is a judge. However, there is a recent court decision(Humphrey), that is creating a lot of change within the system. [2]

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16631647

2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16631990

I've addressed it. People who cannot afford to pay bail (or for a bail bond) will be able to work and be with their families rather than stay in jail. Do you disagree that this is "making things better?"

>>When people are able to work and take care of their families who would otherwise be sitting in a concrete box, waiting for time to pass.

>And how are we going to know that is happening?

Are you over-thinking this? We will know this is happening when people show up for work and then go home to their families at the end of the day.

It's not evidence. You're answer defines a success criteria, but does not give evidence. I agree that if fewer people stay in jail that would be a success. What proof does Promise have that they will achieve that?

>Are you over-thinking this? We will know this is happening when people show up for work and then go home to their families at the end of the day.

And how am I supposed to know that is happening? Is Promise going to publish numbers? What is their control group?

No one is here accusing you of doing any of these things. On the contrary, there is an implication that you are positive that you will be able to do these things, even though you're obviously still validating the idea, at some level.

Edit: switched you're for your.

Isn't Promise proposing a combination of both, rather than just the judge alone? e.g.,

Before: Judge makes decision; person is more or less on their own.

After: Judge makes decision; person loosed but with a variety of tools/functions to help them.

That's literally the definition of a net win. You do your best and things get better, mostly. It doesn't mean perfect

The application to this subject is the very idea that companies such as this are motivated to optimize their methodology of convincing judges or whatever ultimate adjudicator exists, to exonerate their clients.

I don't see any indication of Promise being a nonprofit, so we have to assume their primary goal is in fact profit.

Bad actors shouldn't be able to throw money at the optimization of skirting the law. To the extent that Promise is successful, that conclusion can and will be easily drawn to great effect.

Will every employee of Promise need to convince their state bar association of their character and fitness?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_critique

Supposing that their motives are pure profit is extra cynical; there are plenty of organizations in the world that do good and still earn a little money.

Since this is all pre-trial, the incentives for Promise are to ensure that they have the best rates possible of a) showing up for trial and b) not committing extra offenses until then. The only danger I see is the possibility that they would over-select candidates and get too many who use this as a way to dodge their trials or commit more crimes. Since either of these harm their ability to do business, I would think you agree that they are incented to minimize those events.

I dont think Lucas applies; its about the weakness of regulations to control actors. This is a new organization that aims to offer an alternative for existing government actors.

I'm concerned about what their plan is for if and when they find out that the hypothesis that is their most prominent, and most marketable use case has been falsified, yet it turns out that some other market they hadn't even considered at the start is absolutely printing money for them, even if it represents significant mission creep from keeping poor people out of jail.

Supposing that their motives are profit driven is putting two and two together. We're currently in the middle of YC demo days. This very post constitutes a prong in their launch strategy.

Claiming that profit motive and the motive to do good in the world are mutually exclusive is the true red herring here. It is separately egregious, because it also aims to frame my argument as wanting them to fail in any related venture. As I've said all along, I'd simply like to know what, besides blind trust, should we lean on, to ensure that a private company, who will undoubtedly have lots of reasons to want to keep its methodologies a secret, will be honest and forthcoming in the better than average chance that their favored marketing use case doesn't end up as what is truly sustaining their business. After all, no plan survives first contact with the enemy.

The answer to people claiming you might be a bad actor is go the extra mile, and do things and con men cannot, such as provide meaningful context, and coherent arguments that actually address your skeptics' questions.

The Lucas Critique is actually one of those theories that has been put forth in many permutations, such as the Cobra Effect, Campbells Law, and Goodhart's Law. In plain english, its just saying that if you want to prevent some behavior in others, giving clear, explicit, comprehensive targets of what it means to comply is counterproductive, because those targets are always an imperfect proxy for the actual behavior you wish to curb, and "compliance" can nearly always be achieved to the letter of the law, while not in the spirit of the law. It applies to social theory in general, which is the context of Campbell's Law.

If what you're saying actually comes to pass, I'll celebrate it. But to gas light the devil's advocates who simply want to ensure that this isn't another group of Elizabeth Holmes style charlatans, is transparent and fully deserving of being called out as grade A, corn fed bullshit. I can almost hear the raspiness in your voice as you describe these situations. There's a Sean Colvin song playing in the background.

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. How will you deftly strum my heart strings if its an objectively guilty rapist who is allowed to take care of their family, rather than sit in the cold concrete box where other possible victims are safe from him?

See http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/2... for more details on that example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

It clearly is an example.

> Here's how Promise works: We work in partnership with governments who release people from jail on condition that they work with Promise as an alternative to being in custody. We also provide support to people under community supervision. We use an intake assessment to create an individualized plan that is based on the risks and needs of each participant."

I took that to mean that someone from the government and someone from Promise look together at the record of someone in jail (and obviously the government would have the final say), decide if they are a candidate for release.

And, my first thought about the "intake asseessment" step to ascertain the level of risk of individuals in the Promise program was that it would be like any other social science/psychology-based interview and questionnaire process.

#2 is a good point, and a concern I had as well. At the same time, if some progress could be made (as Promise intends) on decreasing our prison population, that would be really good for society.

#3 seems like an assumption. Maybe, maybe not - it's hard to say without input from those who have experience w/the criminal justice system.

I definitely agree there are a lot of ethics issues here. That said, on a scale of 1 - 10, for tech companies/ideas with potential ethics issues, this is way below the Google/Facebook/Palantir/etc level - i.e., this is not the slipperiest slope we have to slide.

>It seems like the founders want to make a positive impact on society, but there's a whole lot of slippery slope and other ethical issues here.

Only on HN is app-based remote monitoring seen as potentially worse than being IN JAIL.

I don't know the answer to any of these, but I think it's worth discussing. As such, I've decided to view your dismissal as a compliment. "Only on HN is app-based remote monitoring as a method to reduce jail seen as a complex system with many inputs and outputs that sometimes have unintended consequences and as such it deserves in-depth discussion, especially since it's such an important issue." (not that I think this discussion is only available on HN)

That's a bit of a strawman - there are other ethical issues at play here. Some people don't have smartphones. Others will have theirs lost/stolen/broken. Do they go back to jail?

None of these things should wind up determining whether a person goes to jail or not, but that's a risk here.

* What will happen if nefarious actors discover how to hack or game this system? Will you be able to pay the mob to get hacked out of jail?

* On the flip-side, could a nefarious actor put you in the penal system, or at least make it look like you were arrested?

* What protections are there around malfeasance within the company? Parole officers are public employees, but what's the liability within a LLC?

The shoplifters, often the poorest of the poor, had to pay hundreds of dollars for this “leniency”, often without knowing that the police wouldn’t even have come for the low-value crime.

Don’t do that.

Promise should "do that" if they can improve the process relative to the status quo.

https://mentalhealth.openpathcollective.org/shoplifting/

http://offendersolutions.com/theft_class.htm

https://qz.com/1076348/a-shoplifting-solution-billed-as-enli...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/0...

"pay $320, or we call the cops"

Phaedra and Diana

For all that it was barely even a prison, I resented it, and still do. Taking a person's freedom is wrong. It may be necessary for society to function, but it is still wrong. At best it's the lesser evil. And even if there was no prison, no walls, I know I would resent being told what to do in the way your system seems to require.

That said, what you're proposing still seems like it would be less bad than prison, especially prisons as I understand they are in the USA. Of the inmates I knew, practically all were addicts of some description. One young man could not grasp the idea that 110 millimeters is 11 centimeters when I tried to show him with a ruler. I don't imagine them being in prison helped very many of them, or society, in any meaningful way. The one person I felt might not return had apparently quit crime well before but been convicted of some old misdeeds when someone ratted him out.

So it sounds like your ideas are better, at least. Still, I can't say much more than that I think you're entering an enterprise that does evil in the name of the greater good. It probably needs doing, and it sounds like you're trying to reduce harm. I can't applaud you, but I hope you can accomplish your goals and live with yourselves, given the world you're entering.

Americans, culturally, seem to have little problem with spending a lot of money per year to keep a person incarcerated: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-prison-costs-201706...

But they will balk at taxpayer money being used for preventative programs which intend to stop people from becoming addicted to hard drugs (heroin/opiates, meth, cocaine) in the first place, and also balk at paying money for treatment of current addicts.

I want to be charitable here, but it sounds like you're saying that it is unconditionally wrong, as in, prison is simply wrong. If you are, then, sorry, but that is utterly insane. If someone commits a serious crime, that person deserves serious punishment, and of serious punishments, imprisonment for a commensurate period of time is entirely appropriate. For the more egregious crimes, imprisonment is insufficient (think of Breivik who easily deserved the death penalty). What the appropriate measures against drug abuse are, I don't know.

And yes, my personal judgment is that taking a person's freedom may be necessary in sone cases but is always a violation. If we want to keep putting people in prison, we need to bear that burden, not pretend it doesn't exist.

Keep in mind, a for-profit can have a social good mission and remain aligned to it (See Patagonia for instance).

Just because you are a for-profit does not mean you are beholden to pursuing profit at all costs. But yes, a B corp is another good option, though it has its pluses and minuses as well.

Perverse incentives. If a company's profit is linked to higher incarceration, they are incentivized to make the problem worse, not better.

This doesn't make all non-profits magical paragons of virtue, or all for-profits evil. It is simply an indicator.

I don't have that much faith in non-profits. But I don't have any faith in a for-profit company for social good.

Except there should be a much smaller supply of prisoners because many laws are unjust as they are now. The drug war directly serves the prison industrial complex and private prisons are one of the biggest lobbying groups against decriminalization and legalization.

Now maybe Promise won't lobby for the war on drugs because it would shatter their illusion of social good, but if they grow they will end up lobbying in other ways that will directly oppose public interests.

If you have ideological views that people > profit (which I suspect you do, and I completely agree with), then that can be an incentive. But I think it is important to recognize that people and the systems they build can be corrupted over time. What happens when people that don't have the same ideology take control? The profit incentive won't change, but the ideological one may.

I wasn't the one that asked the question initially, but it's possible that's what he/she was getting at.

What is your business incentive to reduce crime rate? How reduction of the crime rate is making your business more profitable?

I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare online dating to an industry which, quite literally, destroys peoples lives and often unfairly targets disadvantaged groups.

However, I'm nervous about a for-profit, investor-backed company getting into rehabilitation and criminal justice. When criminality becomes a profit center, these supporting companies are disincentivized to reduce crime or penalties for crime.

I can imagine companies like this will participate in lobbying efforts to keep recreational drugs criminalized as that's a huge population of offenders who will needs exactly these services.

I'd have a much better feeling if it was setup as a non-profit.

Please stop.

It’s pretty common to have private contractors providing pre-trail release and probation services (at least in Florida) and I think you will find the opposite.

Take your contract for GPS Tracking, that won’t help anyone get bond who isn’t entitled to bond, and it won’t make bond cheaper for those that can’t afford it. GPS Tracking is just an added expense, it’s a condition of Pretorial release that: a) makes the contractors money and b) results in revocation of bond for violations of Pretrial/probation/parole conditions.

In my experience all these private contractors have exclusive contracts and are incentivized for people to violate (leading to charges, additional penalties, costs, etc...), for example:

-traffic schools

-DUI schools/programs

-DUI boots for cars

-DUI ignition breathalyzers

-drug testing facilities

-drug courts/treatment facilities

Ive seen more than a few HN discussions on the issues with privatized prisons. Same with the types of contracts/services I listed above, they ensure all their privatized services are added as conditions of release to the detriment of defendants, including financial burden and likelihood of violations so they end up right back where they started.

Isn't that inherently what bounty hunters do?

For example!

It’s understandable that you have no good answer to this, because the answer is clear. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16631983

Cavalier indeed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16632252

Ugh https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16631560

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16631723

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16632770

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16632329

It just goes on.

It’s a bit too clear that you’ve identified a place where yet another middleman can profit without solving a problem directly, or rendering services, as a for-profit company in a space which should not be producing profits.

Our constitution says that people have the right to a speedy trial.

Shouldn't we be working to make the trial process faster? Assuming that these individuals don't go to jail, I find the "promise" approach unethical for someone who is innocent.

Indeed; that's part of the Eighth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Also the Tenth Amendment states:

> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

And boy, is this Amendment violated good and hard constantly. Let's not even talk about the First and Second.

Our governments are very good at ignoring their own laws.

But I understand this viewpoint is nutso in the eyes of many. Still, I think most can agree, especially the wealthy Silicon Valley liberal types the tech industry is rife with, that things are out of control with the current state of the "justice" system.

My biggest concern is the Prison Guard Union. For example, in California, they are the most powerful political group in the state. California is #41 in spending per student, but #1 in spending per prisoner.

How will you break through the prison union, when what you offer ostensibly reduces the need for prison guards?

Has Promise been used in a real-world setting yet? I'd love to see the results.

What does it mean for the person to "work with Promise?" Are they performing a service or labor, or simply a subject of the administration protocols mentioned later? In other words, Promise offloads the management of the individual while they await trial from local gov't to a third party?

In this interview, he was asked what a good justice system would look like. His reply was that real justice would involve a large factor of "making things right" for the victims. Not just pointless punishment (while punishment was certainly a factor he'd see in the system), but focused towards "making things right". If you steal, pay back the stolen goods manyfold. If you sexually abuse, do time in help centers to assist victims (obviously well-supervised). If you kill, help the family financially and do time in aftercare.

The whole focus on justice in his point of view should be to ease the burden of the act for the family/society afterwards. To me this is a really great view of fixing any wrongdoing. I hope Promise will focus on this facet as well; it would be beneficial too. Public support will definitely increase as well as the lives of victims.

Setting things up so that you profit when someone is convicted of stealing from you seems like a dangerous incentive.

Could it also be applied to halfway house use cases? I assume you will require the user to carry a smartphone and it will have geofencing, in and out. I also assume you will be using face recognition to semi-randomly authenticate the user.

This is the first YC HN post I have ever opened, I think this is great idea, esp because most of these businesses are started by unethical leaders motivated purely by profit.

Punishing criminals with jail time not only makes sense from the standpoint of protecting the community from bad elements. It also serves two other purposes that are often overlooked:

  1. Retribution for the crime committed. This is especially important if the crime had one or several clear victims.

  2. As a deterrent / warning for other potentially criminal actors.

Point 2 is important to instill respect for the state of law in everyone else.

I am aware that this is not in line with more progressive / liberal opinions, but I haven't come across any good alternative models so far.

Their other focus is on parolees, so your points don't really apply to them either.

Here's how Promise works: We work in partnership with governments who release people from jail on condition that they work with Promise as an alternative to being in custody.

Not sure it only applies to pre-trial people or parolees. A clarification would be welcome.

It's a low-tech solution to solve a common social problem. It could actually improve something for the lives of the plebes, as opposed to exploiting them through more advanced surveillance algorithms or other Machiavellian annoyances.

I worked on a rural drug court that did a lot of pretrial diversions; if we jailed every offender we'd have been living in a ghost town. Prison does not help the lives of people predisposed to addiction and due process is often a joke, especially when the charges are weak. Anything you can do to mitigate this in places with less progressive judges is an improvement.

Best of luck to you!

It's fine to disagree or be critical in a substantive way, as many others in the thread have done. But it's not fine to arbitrarily reduce a subject to something ugly and trivial in order to demean it. In addition to being uncivil, that's off topic, since when you do that you're not engaging with the actual thing.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(Edit: I originally said "What's not fine is to spew reductionist bile"—but this also breaks the site guideline against name calling. Sorry! Not always the easiest rule to avoid breaking.)

The comment makes two reductionist moves: it casually substitutes one thing for another as if the two were the same, in order to tar one with derision proper to the other; and it uses the modifier "merely" followed by something trivial in order to demean the subject. I don't know what you call reductionism, but to me that word is not only justified, the comment is a poster child of it.

If I wrote yet another minimal lisp implementation in a weekend, and marketed it as if it was going to best Chez Scheme in all benchmarks, and someone came along and told "yeah but this is just a reiteration of sth. we already had, nothing new here, and your ways seem a bit shady", would we have to discount it as reductionism?

You might disagree what people think, but you should not think and decide instead of them. I appreciate the work you do as a moderator of this fabulous community, but in this case you're openly siding with one side of the discourse. Either do not do that, or add to the guidelines that "HN moderation will vouch for what HN companies are doing, disagreements on their busines models are unwelcome". And also, while at it, I can not vouch for the comment I'm talking about, and I would rather.

Step 1. Allow Promise to amass a useful amount of people who are awaiting trial/convicted of minor crimes.

Step 2. Suddenly threaten to shut them down and immediately incarcerate all the people that Promise is keeping out of jail, unless they give your corporate donors access to their captive and monitored labor pool.

Step 3. If this goes well and makes everybody money, assist your donors in a corporate takeover of Promise.

You need to identify the least riskiest of cases, identify numbers, what the current scenario and the projected outcome would look like. It does not need to be a dramatic change. At this point, what you need to be seeking is a mindset change from just jailing folks.

"You should buy a company any fool can manage because eventually, one will." (attributed to Peter Lynch)

With all respect, the founders seem well-intentioned (though my impression of them is worthless, being based on a few paragraphs) but if Promise succeeds then eventually others will run the company and there will be competitors. As Lynch says, we can't count on the managers.

Prisoners are very vulnerable. As we have seen with the for-profit prison industry and bail industry, they are abused when at the mercy of private business. For example, I read recently that in some prisons, prisoners receive only one meal on some days in order to cut costs. For profit businesses have every incentive to abuse these people and no incentive on the other side except the good intentions of management. Eventually, the management won't be so well-intentioned.

Making money from incarcerating people may be an unavoidably unethical business. Perhaps a non-profit would be a better idea.

https://www.bcorporation.net/what-are-b-corps/certified-b-co...

While this is clearly the best 'bang for buck' in addressing an issue (USA: 22% of the world's prisoners), I wonder how this model, if successful, can be rolled out to other nations.

Fanciful thinking to apply this to China or NK work camps of course, but for AUS, EU etc., perhaps this can be used as a proof of concept, monitored and discussed in the relevant houses of parliament.

--

On a different note, this is a potential slippery slope in terms of freedoms. When cost to apply this technology falls, there is the danger of tracking device sentences to become longer and longer - 2 terms (of a far right government for example) could quickly legislate to the point at which people are tracked for much of their lives.

It seems like an interesting idea but I'm hesitant to support this. As we've seen this week we need to be more critical as to what companies are doing with our data. Unfortunately a disproportionate amount of black and Latino individuals are processed through the criminal Justice system. As a black man I really don't feel comfortable with supporting a company that will data mine people are are systematically processed through the CJ system.

Will you only be working with suspects pre-conviction, or will you also work with the convicted as part of a sentence that would otherwise involve time in prison or county jail?

Is "working with Promise instead of being in jail" only for people who are in jail pre-trial? Or will you be trying to do this for people who have been convicted of actual crimes?

What do you think are the top one or two obstacles that you face in on the way to achieving your goal?

I do have a couple questions and please forgive my ignorance in the US judicial system, but from the post it seems that Promise will provide an organized way for participants to be tracked and make/keep appointments.

* How would Promise and its government partners determine a person's eligibility?

* Is a Promise program intended to be available for everyone regardless of the offence? If so, how does Promise intend to convince the society at large that tracking and monitoring the participant is enough to deter repeated offences while on the program? Especially for more violent crimes

* Is the end goal that Promise is in mind when the sentencing is done? ie: the judge would sentence an offender to be on a Promise program for x months/years?

* While I personally think this is a great idea, especially for people convicted of non-violent offences, the fact remains that a mark on one's criminal record severely limits one's job prospects. Does Promise work with participants to better their chances on getting a job and getting back on their feet?

Again, best of luck on this!

I'd personally focus on the juvenile justice system and perhaps young adults. You need to incorporate education into the program to help people get their GED or equivalent.

I've seen kids go into jail on a Friday for the most silly reason, only to have to wait till Tuesday to even be seen in court. The county I lived in only heard cases Tuesday and Thursday. So Friday meant multi-night lockup. This can be incredibly daunting on a kid. Especially a first time offender. If you guys could create a trust system where kids could be released immediately to parents by using a device with app it could stop some problems before they begin.

Partnership for work is probably the next most critical piece. If you could find companies that, based on your assessment, would be happy to hire people on your program you would be tackling another big problem. If the only way someone can provide for their children is to steal, they're going to do it.

Good luck with this! It's a noble cause and something has to disrupt the judicial system.

In fact I'd like to see restricted freedom and monitoring systems like this put in place for people who would be in jail otherwise, not just those awaiting trial.

Maybe this idea would be more akin to a halfway house than to actual jail.

All it takes is one repeat offender hurting someone while on your program. Cue the pitchforks...

On the other hand, I worry this sounds a lot like private prisons. What happens if the crime rate goes way, way down, or that the only people left in prison are the dangerous who wouldn’t qualify for Promise? What does that do to your profits? Would you be willing to accept an ultimately very low revenue in exchange for a “job well done”?

Anything that combines “for-profit” and “criminal justice system” makes me uncomfortable, even if people’s hearts are in the right places and the business does do good in the world. I hope this works out, but I am uneasy about yet another business that sees criminals as a market.

One very surprising thing about the US justice system is that most first time inmates do not reoffend. A person released from my state's prisons for the first time doesn't go back 80% of the time in the next 5-10 years (whatever the tracking period is).

So there's two entirely different inmate flows, the one timers, and the all the timers. If you made a magical, pre-trial system that could completely stop reoffending, you'd still have a pretty good flow from just first timers, who keep showing up as long as humans are humans.

At the same time, preventing reoffending would make prison populations drop dramatically, since most people in prison are there for violent crimes and usually repeat offenders.

Locking people up for not being able to pay their fines/fees is literally debtors' jail. This was supposed to have been declared unconstitutional, but the practice remains, and the ACLU is fighting current cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtors'_prison

[edited out some inflammatory editorializing, sorry]

Having personally spent 2301 days in prison 19-26yrs old I found that many factors are at play in those who return. Truly look forward to what you are looking to accomplish and am open to helping however I can.

I hope that this works out for you and your clients, I really do.

Could you speak more to this? There are serious concerns with software being used to evaluate the risk of criminal behavior. Are these being considered?

https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessm...

Based on some court-associated Drug Replacement Programs in the South, my perception is failure of the subject to pay fees on an ongoing basis might trigger a “step up”. In the court programs I referenced, you either show up every day with $25 for your dose of Suboxone or go back to the slammer.

Please elaborate on your fee structures, how they are paid, and as I originally asked, what are the interactions between fees and increasing enforcement?

Is your proposition to these governments that they should pay you to supervise paroled persons instead of their own pre-existing systems? Is your proposition that it will be more effective (in terms of lower recidivism) and cost per parolee?

My experience is that smaller jurisdictions try to wrangle monetary fees and levies using the threat of jail-time and the disruption it causes to a person's life so you may be facing some perverse incentives from some of the audience of 'customers' you're trying to reach in smaller jurisdictions.

But what you're doing is great and I applaud yCombinator taking a chance on such a vital and excellent venture!

I think it's an idea we as society should look into, but I fear criminal justice is just too politicized these days. But maybe this is only at the national level, and people are much more open at the state/local levels.

What have the state/local people thought about it?

Right now in some cities in the South of Brazil the police have to let the arrested criminals go because there is no room for them in the cells.

I truly hope Phaedra and Diana can help fix it!

Are there existing protocols/precedents within the judicial for deciding who would be eligible, and not be a risk to the public?

My first thought was that politicians/judges/etc will be afraid to be seen as "soft on crime", or, "releasing murderers and rapists," etc. In other words, that the social and political aspects of Promise would be the most challenging part.

How is this different from parole or a halfway house?

Bail is to be set based on the seriousness of the charges and the likelihood that the accused will skip out on further proceedings.

If your clients don't have enough assets to 'make bail', either the charges are very serious or they have made very poor financial decisions (maybe both). Either makes them a flight risk and there is a reason they'll stay in custody.

Your program will essentially take in the worst of the accused and try to get them to the court on-time. I don't see anything in your well-meaning plans that gives proper motivation or incentive for them to follow through and not just skip the county/state/country.

To work, your candidate selection will have to be very vigorous and my guess is there isn't a large enough user base to make all the red tape of working with local and state governments worth it.

Curious what unintended consequences will you need to be on the lookout for?

For example, could this increased capacity and decrease costs and then will that capacity go towards even more arrests?

If you save a department, say 50%, they may be reluctant to lose their budget and instead will just double the number of arrests/people held.

so a private police force “monitoring” people?

i don't like it when private businesses get involved with public programs (look at private prisons for example). we already have enough corruption in the system.

Examples of some of the crimes that people 'would otherwise be in jail' for?

As long as there is a profit incentive for people to be in the criminal justice system, there will be market forces pushing to increase the prison population.

I worry about a private company making that decision. It should be the government to make that kind of decision, not private industry.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture#Laws

Where could someone find any #'s / data around this?

If it's better than the other, it will probably succeed.

:D

The answer to your question is just one word, and that word is greed.

1) Is a calendar with reminders

2) Can integrate with a wearable GPS monitor

3) Has a survey that decides how much freedom each user loses

4) Provides "referrals and support"

5) Gives reports to a court

Doesn't sound all that innovative to me. And that's not even considering the perverse ethics and incentive structures here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Obviously the app is just a part of what they're doing, and the bulk of it involves working with people and institutions.

I understand the temptation to post snarky internet dismissals. It's a quick way to vent annoyance about something where it can take a lot of energy to react substantively. Nonetheless we don't want them here—not because we want HN to be criticism-free (on the contrary, there is plenty of good criticism in this thread) but because they make us all dumber and the site lamer. On HN, people need to do the work of processing their annoyance, figuring out what the underlying substantive point is, expressing it in words—and then post that. Or, alternatively, just don't comment. That takes even less energy than snarking.

This isn't something we arrived at a priori, by the way, or some moral sentiment about snark. It's a pragmatic assessment of what works and doesn't work on HN.

great, you've invented the penal workhouse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhouse

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

What happens when investors come knocking for you to make more money off parolees backs?

Sad and bitter experience has taught us that the guidelines violations do far more damage to the forum than the sandwich filling can ever make up for in value. That's why we have the guidelines.

Edit: I detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16632889 and marked it off-topic.

Edit: detached.

Anyhow... I wish you the very best and I hope you can prove me wrong!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_probation

Find this "Promise extends the scale and effectiveness of community supervision by balancing human touch and technology to improve long-term outcomes." http://joinpromise.com/#how I can't find anything like that on Wikipedia. Can you help?

Where will the perverse incentives land this company in 10 years? Will we see them lobbying to keep xyz illegal so as to maintain their "customer base"? Will they under-report parole violations so not to undermine their income, thereby leading to (terrible crime z)? Who knows. It's not a thing that should be privatized, because money can't be trusted, because incentives corrupt.

But hey, if it makes YC a buck...

So like what happens when the first 22 yr old "community assistance team member" gets raped and chopped up into pieces by one of your clients? Is that just the price of disruption?

The main issue with these types of programs. Once someone is on the "jail track" they have already failed and been failed by society. The real solution is to keep as many people on the right path as possible before they go wrong.

This feel good crap also doesn't account for the fact that a huge percent of people are opportunistic pieces of garbage that will break the law for a small personal benefit when the penalty is low. Many people already out there will at the prospect of lesser penalties start to defect from the social contract they are currently adhering to.