Hacker News Reader

Comment by phaedradiana | Hacker News Reader

(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.

View on HN

> (1) We believe scale will be critical. Also, qualitative and quantitative analysis. I do not think this can be solved only through technology.

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?

Can you elaborate on what additional rigor you would like to see, or in what way you think this is cavalier?

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 I found specifically cavalier was the statement that they "believe scale will be critical". That sounds like every ML/data driven start up that doesn't have enough data to actually make accurate models. There's a lot of fake it til you make it in startups like these.

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

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.

Agreed bail must go. We are working in Kentucky, where bail is gone. However, it has not solved the problem.

> Kentucky

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

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.

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.

They would probably choose to get out without our program. The system works better for people with money. We are trying to bend the arc of justice but it is still bent.We are working with a population that is incarcerated because they cannot afford bail.

The system will always be bent towards people with money; thats what money is for.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com