.png)
Disillusioned with the adversarial justice system?
- Steph Turner
- Jan 23
- 13 min read
Disgusted with the adversarial justice system?
Consider the emerging alternative of need-response, a new professional service in development to address needs beyond legalistic or psychological limitations. Based on anankelogy, the new social science for understanding our needs, it applies and prioritizes responses to our inflexible needs. One caring act at a time.
Which do you prefer?
Keep up your hopes by staying with established institutions and attempts to reform them.
OR
Join efforts to co-create a new alternative centered on accountably responding to needs.
With the following prompts, I asked ChatGPT to list the pain points of those who the new professional service of need-response is being created to serve.
“List of pain points among those disillusioned with the adversarial justice system.” It gave me 10 pain points below.
“List of pain points of those disillusioned with the innocence movement below.” It gave me the two sets pain points below, totaling 20.
Need-response can fill the gaps left by the adversarial legal system
Now let’s look at how need-response better serves those underserved and disillusioned by our failing institutions. Need-response could be the answer to each of these pain points.
After each point below, I briefly share how need-response can be far, far better. Click on the right-arrow to learn more.
This is where you can join the effort. You are welcomed to respond to this vision, add to it, critique it. You're encouraged to help shape this alternative for resolving more needs and improving our overall wellness.
“Here are some common pain points felt by those disillusioned with the adversarial justice system.” And how need-response can be the answer.
“Perception that wealthier individuals have more access to quality legal representation, while low-income individuals face significant barriers.”
Need-response starts free and spreads costs as an investment in your improvements.
“Belief that the adversarial system often prioritizes ‘winning’ cases over discovering the truth or achieving fair outcomes.”
Need-response prioritizes each side’s inflexible needs over winning a case.
“Concerns that the system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation or restorative justice, leading to high recidivism rates.”
Need-response puts inflexible needs ahead of our flexible reactions to them.
“Worry that racial, socioeconomic, and other biases lead to unfair treatment or harsher sentencing for marginalized communities.”
Need-response complements or competes with the law to produce impartial results.
“Frustration with the length and expense of legal proceedings, which often make justice inaccessible for many people.”
Need-response serve justice needs more quickly and cheaply than the legal system.
“Belief that the over-reliance on plea bargains can pressure innocent individuals into pleading guilty due to fear of harsher sentences if convicted at trial.”
Need-response produces safer communities without adversarial categories.
“Concern over the power of prosecutors to make critical decisions, such as charging, that can heavily influence case outcomes.”
Need-response holds prosecutors accountable for their actions and inactions.
“A perception that sentencing is often disproportionately harsh, especially for non-violent crimes.”
Need-response offers a more responsive alternative to ineffective incapacitation.
“Worry that certain evidence types, like eyewitness testimony or coerced confessions, are unreliable yet still heavily relied upon.”
Need-response unpacks the motives of investigators who rely upon weak standards.
“Frustration that the system often fails to address root causes of crime, leading to a cycle of re-offense rather than prevention and support.”
Need-response proactively addresses the unresolved needs at the root of all violence.
Need-response offers a compelling alternative to the adversarial legal process.
More about this law-fit alternative later. It can complement or compete with legalistic institutions.
Need-response addresses the problem of overlooked wrongful convictions in two phases. The first attempts to improve innocence claim forms used by innocence projects. The second moves beyond the adversarial legal process itself to address the affected needs on all sides.
This first step offers an estimated score of likely innocence, by comparing the innocence claim to those cases already exonerated. Since its creation, academic Carrie Leonetti, of the University of Auckland School of Law, has published a similar innocence checklist.
The innocence claimant downloads an Estimated Innocence Form. After filling it out with the details of the case, they see it will automatically produce an Estimated Innocence Report with a score of viable innocence, and a quick summary of the compelling nature of the claim.
You can find this form for innocence claimants right here.
This form is also offered to innocence litigators here.
You can find this form filled out by the author right here.
Estimated innocence of Steph Turner when compared to already exonerated cases:
92% chance of likely innocence.
Asexual person comes out as trans in early 90s. Is spiritually compelled to transcend polarizing differences to resolve needs. Nonconformity results in being falsely accused as a “sexual predator” homophobic stereotype. Convicted without evidence. Must register as sex offender for life. Forced into poverty and homelessness. Rejected cornerstone.
No other criminal history
Consistently maintained innocence, took no plea deals
Transphobic investigation and prosecution
Convicted without corroborating evidence
Climate of sex abuse hysteria
Media sensationalized coverage
Exculpatory evidence overlooked with untested DNA
Spiritual compulsion to resolve needs at odds with judicial system
Asexual "transspirit" registered for life as a sex offender
But what if the innocence claimant, with a high viability score, still cannot get their wrongful conviction reversed in a court of law? Need-response then asserts the higher authority of properly resolved needs.
Need-response goes beyond asserting innocence by addressing all the affected needs on each side of a conflict. Need-response incentivizes the innocence claimant to transcend the imposing limits of the adversarial approach to respond directly to each others' needs.
Only need-response links the purpose of any law to accountably measure the actual outcomes of its application and enforcement. Mutual respect resolves more needs than mutual defensiveness.
This provides innocence claimants underserved by the legal process to then challenge the limits of the adversarial approach. This offers a mutuality alternative much more responsive to each side's needs. Laws themselves to not resolve needs; we do.
You can find the empty form here.
You can find this form filled out by the author right here.
You can get to the meat of this responsive alternative by reading the responses to these three key items.
"I sense she presented a personal struggle with her own emerging sexuality as same-sex attracted. She later came out as lesbian. She appears to be drawn to my transgender sister as someone openly being herself in a way she likely wish she could be. Or at least drawn to explore what this could all mean for her, at a time when LGBTQ+ people were largely marginalized by mainstream society and not readily accepted at home. When caught not at home when confronted by her mother, she could not say that she willingly interacted with such a "deviant" in the neighborhood."
"My dominant need at the time was to come out as transgender without being smeared with popular transphobic or homophobic tropes, such as the widespread belief that we're more inclined to pedophilia than cisgender and straight males. To not be falsely accused of sexual misconduct but instead be accepted as an asexual (demisexual) person. Once accused, to have the preponderance of evidence favoring my innocence to show that I am not guilty of what I am not capable of doing. Once wrongly convicted, to be exonerated. Once sentenced to lifetime sex offender registration, to be removed from that listing with prejudice. Ultimately, to have legal recourse in a system less adversarial and based more on mutually addressing the affected needs on all sides to a conflict."
"If the law would allow it, I would affirm her same-sex attraction. And tell her that I do not personally hold any animosity toward her. I hold no grudge against her for falsely accusing me of things I am not capable of doing. I understand her need at the time to not be out to her mother or to her homophobic-presenting stepfather. I understand her motive to accuse my sibling and then me to avoid getting into trouble by her irate mother, when her mother demanded to know why she was not at home when her mother came home from work. I understand how she was incentivized by the homophobia of the time, that prompted her to shift the spotlight onto us and to then see how the adults would react to other LGBTQ+ people like herself. I appreciate how the reaction toward us would keep her in the proverbial closet for a long time."
Comments