In a state where the recidivism rate is a staggering 65%, at a cost of tens of millions of dollars to taxpayers, we need something radical to turn things around. Over 40% of the prison population is incarcerated for violating the terms of their probation or parole. Custodial insurance is just crazy and disruptive enough of a concept to make a difference in reducing these obscene numbers.
We're working diligently to garner support amongst community activists, religious leaders, and most importantly politicians in hopes of easing any potential restrictions in offering custodial insurance.
Sadly there's a very real possibility that despite our noble intentions, Comeback may ultimately lead to a failed business and some very heavy fines...possibly even jail time.
Are you really ready to go to jail, yet again? That sounds quite bold, and foolish... of you. (No offense intended.)
My 2 cents: if you start getting sued again, you should just leave the country, for some place[1] with not as inane laws. Perhaps Comeback might be more viable there.
[1] Dunno where though... perhaps somewhere in Europe? They probably have low rates of recidivism to start with, though.
As a side point, I can't help but think -- a lot of the recidivism in the U.S. is somehow driven by laws and a system that continues to be upheld by the "stake holders". The stake holders here are, ofcourse those private "prison-as-a-business" corporations.
Fortune favors the bold and dances with the daring. I truly believe that.
>As a side point, I can't help but think -- a lot of the recidivism in the U.S. is somehow driven by laws and a system that continues to be upheld by the "stake holders". The stake holders here are, ofcourse those private "prison-as-a-business" corporations.
Bingo. Society has been using non-profit solutions, (i.e. government funded reentry programs) to combat a for-profit problem. It's time to fight fire with fire. Our revenue model relies on our ability to keep our policyholders out of jail. This means we're going to bust our ass to provide career training and job placement to reduce the likelihood of them returning to custody, thus reducing the likelihood of them filing a claim and us having to pay out. Our success is directly tied to the success of our policyholders. The better they do, the better we do. We're making it profitable to keep people out of jail.
How would such a rumor help him at all? It would ruin his business!
> Low enforcement
I presume you were using some voice-to-text tool?
That rumor would most likely discourage people from becoming clients in the first place.
While "getting out of the building" and talking to our assumed target demo, one of the reservations people had was the belief that we were working in concert with law enforcement.
Edit: That's not to say we have it all figured out by any means. I'd love to read some feedback from the HN community. Not so much legal advice, but in terms of the overall concept of custodial insurance, (an insurance policy that covers a person's expenses for up to a year in the event they get taken into custody.)
Tip: In the UK, operating a fund which hedges against criminal proceedings (colloquially, a 'bust fund') is a severe criminal offence in its own right.
Do reassure me that you've made very sure nobody where you are is likely to prosecute you a second time :)