8 ms·

I'm conflicted about this for a few different reasons: (1) I am always concerned about start ups with hugely impactful products that seem to lack rigor around

by treis 9y ago

I'm conflicted about this for a few different reasons: (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.

Cyberdog 9y ago
> (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? 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.
- treis 9y ago
  It's not a net win if, for example, someone is let out on bail because Promise calls them a low risk and they rape someone. 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?
  - phaedradiana 9y ago
    The fundamental issue is that we are focusing on poor people who are bail eligible and incarcerated only because they cannot afford bail. Yes, some people who have been accused of a crime, do commit an additional crime. However, it is fundamentally unjust to only incarcerate those who are poor and mostly black and brown.
    - criddell 9y ago
      Will your company be posting bail for your clients?
  - Cyberdog 9y ago
    > It's not a net win if, for example, someone is let out on bail because Promise calls them a low risk and they rape someone. 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.
    - jdbernard 9y ago
      > Or the judge that permitted them to bail out? 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.
      - Cyberdog 9y ago
        > 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.
- phaedradiana 9y ago
  Thank you. This is a beautiful answer. We agree on the criteria for evaluating what someone's risk is. Currently, it is primarily decided by the court. We are learning and adapting our own tool based on tools such as the one by the Arnold Foundation but also using qualitative analysis.
  - charlesmzhu 9y ago
    Some lit, Stanford CS paper: "Even accounting for these concerns, our results suggest potentially large welfare gains: one policy simulation shows crime reductions up to 24.7% with no change in jailing rates, or jailing rate reductions up to 41.9% with no increase in crime rates." Judges are famous for not even being close to the pareto optimal curve. https://cs.stanford.edu/~jure/pubs/bail-qje17.pdf https://cs.stanford.edu/~jure/pubs/bail-qje17.pdf
- tmuir 9y ago
  Consider the Lucas Critique [1]. To paraphrase, the general idea is that it is natural for organizations to seek to optimize their ability to navigate any regulation, or any impediment to maximizing their profits, or otherwise maximally seeking their ultimate goal. Its advice is that it is counterproductive to try to reign in the behavior of sophisticated organizations with exact targets of compliance, as you are simply giving those very organizations a blueprint for the necessary optimizations for both minimal, often semantic compliance, and a continuation of the actual behavior the original regulation intended to curb. 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_critique
  - Cyberdog 9y ago
    I think that your heart is in the right place, but objecting to something like Promise just because they have a profit motive is letting perfect be the enemy of good. As I said above, if this system means a single person is able to be working and taking care of their family rather than sitting in a cold concrete box, a great justice has been done to the world, regardless of the motivations of those responsible.
    - tmuir 9y ago
      I think your optimism has a fighting chance of being mirrored in reality at some point in the future. I don't object to the idea of Promise. I object to absolutist statements claiming that companies who plan to do great good by carrying out operations that could easily be subverted to great harm are unequivocally a net positive. 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?
Finbarr 9y ago
It looks to me like they're designed to help the accused, not the criminal. Here's a great infographic about the problem: http://www.pretrial.org/the-problem/ http://www.pretrial.org/the-problem/
- FPGAhacker 9y ago
  I think you may be right. They use the terms Jail and Custody instead of prison and incarcerated. 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.
  - phaedradiana 9y ago
    Very good feedback. Our site is focused on our clients who use very specific language. We will think about how to speak to folks who are not in the system right now.
adamsea 9y ago
With regards to point #1, based on reading the description of Promise and glancing at their website, it does not sound like technology plays a meaningful role in deciding who is released from jail. > 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.
phaedradiana 9y ago
(1) We believe scale will be critical. Also, qualitative and quantitative analysis. I do not think this can be solved only through technology. (2) Parolees are post conviction. We are focused on people who are incarcerated pre trial because they cannot afford bail. (3) This is not what we said but really helpful to understand that is how it reads. We will need to think about it. Fundamentally, we are trying to make the system more just. People who can afford bail can get out, only people with less money usually stay incarcerated when they are bail eligible.
- phyzome 9y ago
  First priority should absolutely be to get rid of the bail system, which is horrifyingly slanted towards imprisonment of the poor, and doesn't accomplish much of anything beyond that. Your calendar thing might be useful. But not as a part of the bail system. Bail must go.
  - dfrappier 9y ago
    Agreed bail must go. We are working in Kentucky, where bail is gone. However, it has not solved the problem.
    - brett40324 9y ago
      > Kentucky Is there any public post, news, or data available yet on the work you're doing in Kentucky?
  - fiter 9y ago
    I think it makes sense to have multiple possible ways to compel someone to behave as you'd like. Money can be a way, but I agree that other ways could be as or more effective and accessible.
- Amygaz 9y ago
  Bail or no bail, I do not see how your system will prevent the Shkreli and Holmes of this world to not be the prime benefactor and beneficiary of your system.
jaredhansen 9y ago
> (2) It seems like streamlining and increasing the ability of governments to monitor parolees... >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.
- dfrappier 9y ago
  When you are in jail or someone you love is in jail the choice to get out with a smartphone app and support is pretty clear. It is interesting feedback about monitoring but when it is you or your family, you want out. The most folks reaching out to us, have families who are trying to help their loved ones.
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  Creating another layer of bureaucracy, even when covered in the veneer of startup tech, can definitely make things worse. Here are some open questions that may show how that's possible: * 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?
- kbenson 9y ago
  While I agree that limited release is better than incarceration in many instances, I don't think the GP should be dismissed so quickly. The third point is important. If being put into this system is viewed as not has harsh as being incarcerated, does that change how likely people are to have charges pressed? Does this bypass most of that by being associated with the pre-trial but post-charges phase? If it ends up causing a 20% dorp in pre-trial incarceration but somehow encourages 20% more arrests that have charges applied, is that worthwhile? 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)
btilly 9y ago
Your questions remind me of how Eli Whitney's cotton gin, originally invented for the purpose of making the lives of slaves better, instead dramatically increased the demand for slaves causing the enslavement of millions. See http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24411 http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/2... for more details on that example.
- kornish 9y ago
  Sounds like an instance of Jevons' Paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
  - btilly 9y ago
    I don't remember running across that paradox before. It clearly is an example.

by treis 9y ago

Cyberdog 9y ago

> (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? 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.

treis 9y ago
It's not a net win if, for example, someone is let out on bail because Promise calls them a low risk and they rape someone. 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?
- phaedradiana 9y ago
  The fundamental issue is that we are focusing on poor people who are bail eligible and incarcerated only because they cannot afford bail. Yes, some people who have been accused of a crime, do commit an additional crime. However, it is fundamentally unjust to only incarcerate those who are poor and mostly black and brown.
  - criddell 9y ago
    Will your company be posting bail for your clients?
- Cyberdog 9y ago
  > It's not a net win if, for example, someone is let out on bail because Promise calls them a low risk and they rape someone. 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.
  - jdbernard 9y ago
    > Or the judge that permitted them to bail out? 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.
    - Cyberdog 9y ago
      > 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.
phaedradiana 9y ago
Thank you. This is a beautiful answer. We agree on the criteria for evaluating what someone's risk is. Currently, it is primarily decided by the court. We are learning and adapting our own tool based on tools such as the one by the Arnold Foundation but also using qualitative analysis.
- charlesmzhu 9y ago
  Some lit, Stanford CS paper: "Even accounting for these concerns, our results suggest potentially large welfare gains: one policy simulation shows crime reductions up to 24.7% with no change in jailing rates, or jailing rate reductions up to 41.9% with no increase in crime rates." Judges are famous for not even being close to the pareto optimal curve. https://cs.stanford.edu/~jure/pubs/bail-qje17.pdf https://cs.stanford.edu/~jure/pubs/bail-qje17.pdf
tmuir 9y ago
Consider the Lucas Critique [1]. To paraphrase, the general idea is that it is natural for organizations to seek to optimize their ability to navigate any regulation, or any impediment to maximizing their profits, or otherwise maximally seeking their ultimate goal. Its advice is that it is counterproductive to try to reign in the behavior of sophisticated organizations with exact targets of compliance, as you are simply giving those very organizations a blueprint for the necessary optimizations for both minimal, often semantic compliance, and a continuation of the actual behavior the original regulation intended to curb. 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_critique
- Cyberdog 9y ago
  I think that your heart is in the right place, but objecting to something like Promise just because they have a profit motive is letting perfect be the enemy of good. As I said above, if this system means a single person is able to be working and taking care of their family rather than sitting in a cold concrete box, a great justice has been done to the world, regardless of the motivations of those responsible.
  - tmuir 9y ago
    I think your optimism has a fighting chance of being mirrored in reality at some point in the future. I don't object to the idea of Promise. I object to absolutist statements claiming that companies who plan to do great good by carrying out operations that could easily be subverted to great harm are unequivocally a net positive. 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?

Finbarr 9y ago

It looks to me like they're designed to help the accused, not the criminal. Here's a great infographic about the problem: http://www.pretrial.org/the-problem/ http://www.pretrial.org/the-problem/

FPGAhacker 9y ago
I think you may be right. They use the terms Jail and Custody instead of prison and incarcerated. 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.
- phaedradiana 9y ago
  Very good feedback. Our site is focused on our clients who use very specific language. We will think about how to speak to folks who are not in the system right now.

adamsea 9y ago

With regards to point #1, based on reading the description of Promise and glancing at their website, it does not sound like technology plays a meaningful role in deciding who is released from jail. > 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.

phaedradiana 9y ago

(1) We believe scale will be critical. Also, qualitative and quantitative analysis. I do not think this can be solved only through technology. (2) Parolees are post conviction. We are focused on people who are incarcerated pre trial because they cannot afford bail. (3) This is not what we said but really helpful to understand that is how it reads. We will need to think about it. Fundamentally, we are trying to make the system more just. People who can afford bail can get out, only people with less money usually stay incarcerated when they are bail eligible.

phyzome 9y ago
First priority should absolutely be to get rid of the bail system, which is horrifyingly slanted towards imprisonment of the poor, and doesn't accomplish much of anything beyond that. Your calendar thing might be useful. But not as a part of the bail system. Bail must go.
- dfrappier 9y ago
  Agreed bail must go. We are working in Kentucky, where bail is gone. However, it has not solved the problem.
  - brett40324 9y ago
    > Kentucky Is there any public post, news, or data available yet on the work you're doing in Kentucky?
- fiter 9y ago
  I think it makes sense to have multiple possible ways to compel someone to behave as you'd like. Money can be a way, but I agree that other ways could be as or more effective and accessible.
Amygaz 9y ago
Bail or no bail, I do not see how your system will prevent the Shkreli and Holmes of this world to not be the prime benefactor and beneficiary of your system.

jaredhansen 9y ago

> (2) It seems like streamlining and increasing the ability of governments to monitor parolees... >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.

dfrappier 9y ago
When you are in jail or someone you love is in jail the choice to get out with a smartphone app and support is pretty clear. It is interesting feedback about monitoring but when it is you or your family, you want out. The most folks reaching out to us, have families who are trying to help their loved ones.
fortythirteen 9y ago
Creating another layer of bureaucracy, even when covered in the veneer of startup tech, can definitely make things worse. Here are some open questions that may show how that's possible: * 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?
kbenson 9y ago
While I agree that limited release is better than incarceration in many instances, I don't think the GP should be dismissed so quickly. The third point is important. If being put into this system is viewed as not has harsh as being incarcerated, does that change how likely people are to have charges pressed? Does this bypass most of that by being associated with the pre-trial but post-charges phase? If it ends up causing a 20% dorp in pre-trial incarceration but somehow encourages 20% more arrests that have charges applied, is that worthwhile? 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)

btilly 9y ago

Your questions remind me of how Eli Whitney's cotton gin, originally invented for the purpose of making the lives of slaves better, instead dramatically increased the demand for slaves causing the enslavement of millions. See http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24411 http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/2... for more details on that example.

kornish 9y ago
Sounds like an instance of Jevons' Paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- btilly 9y ago
  I don't remember running across that paradox before. It clearly is an example.