I'm intrigued and inspired by what you are trying to do!
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?
This is a tough question. I have been a criminal defense attorney and was the co-founder of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights that has worked hard to bring change to the criminal justice system-initially for juveniles but now for adults as well. We understand the concerns and there is no magic answer but we come from a place of wanting to get people out of jail and keeping them out. That is our goal and that is what we will work towards. As we said, we will go for the least restrictive means possible, but if the court requires an ankle monitor for them to get out of jail, we will provide that. If we don't, companies who care nothing about the individuals being incarcerated will continue to get these contracts.
I'm curious, what prevents your company from becoming one of those companies that care nothing about the individuals being incarcerated? Like, imagine if your growth peters out, your board of directors or your investors pressure you into selling, and one of those companies ends up acquiring you. Is there something about your company structure that would prevent this?
It could be incorporated as a not-for-profit. And I have heard that there is a 3rd kind of incorporation somewhere between purely-for-greed and not-for-profit, where some profit is expected, but is not the only reason for the organization. Look for "public benefit corporation".
You're not wrong, but there are absolutely massive amounts of government intrusion and surveillance that I personally would accept as an alternative to rotting in jail.
The choice isn't just between rotting in jail and something like Promise, though. Many of us on this forum could pay bail and face neither. That's the fundamental injustice here, I think.
Are you saying the injustice is that some people can afford to bail out and some cannot? Or is the injustice that the bail concept exists in the first place?
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.
We are pragmatic founders. We spent most of our professional like advocating for these changes and realized we wanted a more immediate solution. We are also worried that the absence of bail can actually lead to more incarceration. Kentucky got rid of private bail but the system is still fundamentally unjust.
Notice they only answer lighthearted/positive inquiries that aren’t too inquisitive.
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.
There's seeking profit (which every sustainable venture should do -- even nonprofits) and only seeking profit at the detriment to the people they serve. The current set of companies in corrective justice are in the latter category -- any effort to be in the former is welcomed in my book. As someone who worked on Global Tel Link as part of the my former employer's portfolio, I can tell you that the intentions of private companies currently serving the corrections departments are far far worse.
Depending on how an organization is constructed, profit is not always "all that matters".
Public Benefit Corporations, as well as Nonprofit Corporation, are possible, and will provide some assurance that the company doesnt turn evil tomorrow.
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.