4 ms·

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 f

by 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.
    - jdbernard 9y ago
      That example was my understanding, glad to be corrected. > 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.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > 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? 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.)
      - dnomad 9y ago
- treis 9y ago
  > 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? 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?
  - Cyberdog 9y ago
    > 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 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.
    - treis 9y ago
      > 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. 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.
- phaedradiana 9y ago
  I replied a bit further along in the comments. I am the co-founder. Thank you.
- dfrappier 9y ago
  We agree. It is also really troublesome to make the case that poor people who cannot afford bail should be kept incarcerated for public safety, but people who have the money to bail out, can await trial at home.
  - module0000 9y ago
    The people that make bail have a financial incentive to “be good”, and not forfeit their bail. That part of the system works fine.... if they offend while out on bail, Uncle Sam gets paid. It’s a broken fix for a broken system. 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.
adamsea 9y ago
I'm pretty sure the government would be the final arbiter of who would be let out. Which does raise the perennial issue of, no politician wants to be the person to let that one guy out who commits another crime, even if the other 9,999 did great.
- phaedradiana 9y ago
  It is a judge. However, there is a recent court decision(Humphrey), that is creating a lot of change within the system.
jdavis703 9y ago
Someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime is not yet a criminal, at least not from the perspective of a criminal justice system based on "innocent until proven guilty." If we start restricting the rights of people we're merely suspicious of in the off chance they commit a crime, we create a very dystopian society.
- phaedradiana 9y ago
  Right now they are being incarcerated. We believe having technology that supports you is better than being incarcerated.
glibgil 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. That's literally the definition of a net win. You do your best and things get better, mostly. It doesn't mean perfect

by treis 9y ago

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.
  - jdbernard 9y ago
    That example was my understanding, glad to be corrected. > 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.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > 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? 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.)
    - dnomad 9y ago
treis 9y ago
> 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? 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?
- Cyberdog 9y ago
  > 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 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.
  - treis 9y ago
    > 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. 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.
phaedradiana 9y ago
I replied a bit further along in the comments. I am the co-founder. Thank you.
dfrappier 9y ago
We agree. It is also really troublesome to make the case that poor people who cannot afford bail should be kept incarcerated for public safety, but people who have the money to bail out, can await trial at home.
- module0000 9y ago
  The people that make bail have a financial incentive to “be good”, and not forfeit their bail. That part of the system works fine.... if they offend while out on bail, Uncle Sam gets paid. It’s a broken fix for a broken system. 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.

adamsea 9y ago

I'm pretty sure the government would be the final arbiter of who would be let out. Which does raise the perennial issue of, no politician wants to be the person to let that one guy out who commits another crime, even if the other 9,999 did great.

phaedradiana 9y ago
It is a judge. However, there is a recent court decision(Humphrey), that is creating a lot of change within the system.

jdavis703 9y ago

Someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime is not yet a criminal, at least not from the perspective of a criminal justice system based on "innocent until proven guilty." If we start restricting the rights of people we're merely suspicious of in the off chance they commit a crime, we create a very dystopian society.

phaedradiana 9y ago
Right now they are being incarcerated. We believe having technology that supports you is better than being incarcerated.

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