Search Results

For the wrongly convicted innocent underserved by the legal process Summary This service is ideal for those with a compelling case of innocence which has been overlooked by the legal process. Answer some basic questions that show you are innocent. We send the results to the DA on your behalf. We incentivize the DA to take a closer look at your case. If they refuse, we appeal to the public in a dynamic new way. For now, this program best serves those who have already done their time and now cannot get a good job or place to live because of the wrongful conviction. It can eventually serve those still falsely incarcerated. This pioneering new program will seek early successes to build upon, in order to be more effective for us all. Description This service is primarily for those who are innocent and disillusioned with the innocence movement. You have been wrongly convicted and are innocent. You had no role whatsoever in the reported crime. You have tried getting help from an innocence project or justice clinic, but none have offered to provide legal assistance to support your case. The service involves two basic steps. It first creates an official document on your behalf, called a Public Declaration of Innocence (PDI). Then it distributes it to those with the power to do something about it. 1. Demonstrate your innocence: How you had not involvement in the reported offense Demonstrate how you are a wrongly convicted innocent person. Provide some information about your case. Answer 12 questions that point to your innocence. Send the results back to us. 2. Declare your innocence: Let need-response publicize your innocence on your behalf Proclaim your demonstrated innocence with the backing of the new professional service of need-response. Have us send your 'PDI' to the relevant DA, to build rapport toward expediting a way to exonerate you quicker than the standard approach. Have us contact the relevant court(s) to inform them of this engaging alternative to adversarial legalism. Have us send a copy of your 'PDI' to all consumer reporting agencies, to accountably improve any criminal background check of you. We're currently testing this service with a prototype. Your feedback can inform us how to build a fully online service. The online program eCourse The service unfolds in four segments, each with a handful of steps. Demonstrate your innocence Declare your innocence Engage Wrap up Each involves a guided step. Let these short videos orient you to that section's content. 1. Demonstrate your innocence Introduction Your EIF score Download & complete the PDI worksheet Click this arrow at the left for a preview of some of this section's content. 8-page worksheet (Excel spreadsheet as prototype) The PDI worksheet consists of eight pages. Click the arrow at the left to see them all. Case data Page 2 gathers key information about your wrongful conviction case. Case name Court docket identifier Appellate docket identifier 12 questions Pages 4 through 7 gives you a dozen questions that are easy for you to answer. Did you ever turn down a plea deal or an option to reduce the charges, so you can challenge all of the charges at a trial? If turning down a plea deal or opportunity to reduce charges, then found guilty at trial, did you express any regret? If you received a lengthy "trial penalty" sentence, did you ever regret not taking a plea deal or admitting some guilt up front? Did you consistently maintain their innocence each time they met the parole board, despite a likely consequence of parole denial? Were you ever released on parole, or instead were you discharged on the maximum outdate? How many major misconducts did you receive while in prison? How many years has it been since the wrongful conviction? Have you ever been accused of this type of crime by anyone else? How many years has it been since you were released from custody, and not been in trouble with the law again? How many times have you been arrested besides this incident? How many other convictions have you received? Are you in a population historically profiled and frequently targeted by law enforcement? Your answer for each item then produces a result in the first paragraph below it. Add context Each item affords space for context. You may want to provide nuance for how your answer is less than ideal. Once you add something for context, the second paragraph below each item adds that you're explaining your answer. Validation You will notice how some of these twelve items rely on self-reporting. Others can be checked by your institutional or public record. An additional question on page 8 asks your permission to allow anyone acting in good faith to check your record. Such transparency boosts your credibility. But it does not factor into the determined level of credible innocence. Results: Credible innocence levels The more you fit the profile of innocence, the higher the level of declarable innocence. You will see it kick out one of these four sentences. Claimant presents an overwhelming pattern of innocence. Claimant presents a compelling case of innocence. Claimant presents a consideration for possible innocence. Claimant fails to present here a case for innocence. Instead of "Claimant", it includes your provided name. Below that sentence are four possible outcomes. Your name appears above the one that fits your responses to those 12 items. demonstrably innocent more innocent than not probably innocent unlikely but maybe innocent Audience shift Before you answer an item, the sentence is directed to you. After it is answered, the sentence shifts to be read by the recipient. The following item is directed at the DA, and any other judicial system stakeholder. Let's bring justice to the innocent Together, we can do better At no fault of their own, innocent people depart prison without their full rights. Collateral consequences of wrongful convictions cost them a good job, sustainable housing, and more. Many slip into cycles of poverty. Some fall into addictions to cope. Together, we can turn that around. Innocence offending Each employer relying upon an errant criminal background check becomes complicit. Along with rental leaders, they become privileged " innocence offenders ". Even neighbors can become innocence offenders under color of law. Expedited exoneration Legal tests for discerning wrongful convictions of the innocent remain disappointingly inadequate. Legalistic norms like "harmless error" and "conviction finality" needlessly prevents exonerating the innocent. This alternative can serve as a kind of triage to identify cases ripe for exoneration, which can perhaps wait, and which can be overlooked. With or without you This tool exists to complement your efforts to serve the underserved innocent. Or it can empower need-response to compete with your meager, or nonexistent, efforts. We invite you to join our efforts, to help create more just outcomes. But since justice delayed is justice denied, we can't wait forever. Contact us now to learn how need-response can serve you. 2. Declare your innocence Overview Verify addresses Upload your finished PDI worksheet Distributing your PDI to key recipients 3. Engage Justice needs Engaging the DA Incentivizing authorities' responsiveness Ready for the DA's response More responsive or more reactive 4. Wrap up Follow-up Final answers to the 12 questions When you complete it, you will receive a certificate that can help you publicly declare your overlooked innocence. For now, this certificate is more symbolic than official. With enough public support, that may all we need. Available support for getting through this program The program is designed to be done on your own at our own pace. But it offers these options in case you could use a hand. That includes getting through any emotional challenges when triggering some painful memories. Peer support at the Unexonerated group Free and unlimited Text support with Steph $14.48 for a 10-minute session In-person support with Steph $59.48 for a 25-minute session Sign up for only $49.48, cheaper than hiring a lawyer Why isn't this offered for free? Why charge any money for this? ​ "Why isn't this free?" you may wonder. Why should you pay for a service to try to undo something that someone else caused? Fair enough. ​ Charging you a fee keeps us accountable to serving your specific interests. You have little say over innocence lawyers or court appointed lawyers who provide their services pro bono. Their accountability tends to shift toward those who fund their services, instead of remaining accountable to you. Besides... ​ this is far cheaper than hiring a lawyer! By contrast, you can hold us accountable because you directly pay for the service. We think of this more as your investment in improved outcomes, not some legal expense. ​ Besides, as others support your cause, they receive benefits along the way. They improve their responsiveness to needs like yours. With public exoneration, we all help each other to reach more of our lives' potential. We all learn to love each other more, to honor the needs of others as our own. Is that not worth $50? ​ Your freedom is worth far more than that!

Clinging to false beliefs about the imperfect judiciary can lull you into "innocence offending" Do you ever slip into “ innocence offending ” by treating the wrongly convicted innocent as if guilty? If so, you could be classified as an “innocence offender”. And you would be in good company.   There is no law against violating certain rights of the wrongly convicted innocent, since it was the law itself that illicitly stripped those rights away. Your complicity may be encouraged. But you can resist.   Check for yourself by how much you agree or disagree with the following statements. Then see how each gets debunked by AI.   Are you unwittingly an ‘innocence offender’? An innocence offender  is anyone who violates the rights of the wrongly convicted innocent, typically by deferring to unacknowledged imperfections and errors of the adversarial judicial system.   You risk being complicit in their violated innocence if you believe and act upon widely held but false views about the accused and wrongly convicted.   Do you believe any of these? People generally get what they deserve. All or at least most prisoners claim they're innocent. High conviction rates contribute to a reduction in crime. The U.S. has the best judicial system in the world. Wrongful convictions of the innocent rarely occur. A criminal defendant is more likely to lie than a police officer. If someone gets arrested, they must have done something wrong. No one would confess to a crime unless they're guilty in some way. Forensics evidence provides conclusive proof of culpability. The appeals process will correct any miscarriages of justice. Eyewitness identification of a perpetrator is consistently reliable. The judge is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system.   The more you take such things for granted, and dismiss a viable innocence claim, the more likely you are an “ innocence offender ”.   The more you believe such things, and dismiss claims of innocence, the more likely you are an “innocence offender”.   Unlike the adversarial system anchored in alienating laws, need-response anchors itself in liberating discipline of principles called ‘ character refunctions ’. Such as humility, grace, patience, resilience, and more.   Be skeptical of the government, including the judiciary Those who run our judicial system benefit from general ignorance around the judicial system's many imperfections. Current power structures disincentivize them from alerting you to their failures. The more you accept these widely accepted assumptions, the more they are served.   The bad news is this: You become their “useful idiots” as they exploit your naïveté for how the adversarial judicial system actually works—or doesn’t work.   Need-response goes beyond the biased-riddled adversarial approach to address all sides more honestly. It holds a higher standard, and instills more discipline, to nurture more of our integrity.   Let’s ask Perplexity to debunk these myths Expand the text to check how this AI debunks these myths.   1. How true is it that people generally get what they deserve? Debunk the myth: People generally get what they deserve. The belief that “people generally get what they deserve” is a common worldview, but it’s more myth than reality. Here’s a breakdown:   1. The Psychological Root: Just-World Belief Psychologists call this the just-world hypothesis —the tendency to assume life is fair and that good things happen to good people, while bad things happen to bad people. It offers a sense of order and control: if the world is fair, then I can avoid misfortune by behaving “right.” But this is a cognitive bias , not reality.   2. Counterexamples from Life Suffering without fault: Children born into poverty, people facing chronic illness, or those hit by natural disasters did not “deserve” their struggles. Injustice: Corruption, exploitation, and systemic inequalities allow people to thrive or suffer irrespective of merit. Randomness: Accidents, chance encounters, or sheer luck often shape lives in unpredictable ways.   3. The Harms of Believing the Myth Victim-blaming: It leads to saying things like “They must have done something to deserve it,” which increases stigma instead of compassion. Disregard for structural issues: It shifts blame from unjust systems (racism, economic inequality, sexism) to individuals. False security: People may overestimate how much control they have, which can magnify feelings of guilt when misfortune strikes.   4. A More Accurate View Life is uneven: Outcomes are shaped by a mix of personal choices, structural forces, opportunity, and luck. Responsibility matters, but not absolutely: Effort and character do influence outcomes—but never in isolation. Compassion is wiser than judgment: Recognizing randomness and inequality encourages empathy, social responsibility, and fairer systems.   Conclusion The idea that “people generally get what they deserve” is not accurate. It oversimplifies a world driven by both human agency and uncontrollable factors. Real wisdom is accepting complexity—people sometimes reap the rewards of their choices, but just as often, circumstances beyond their control shape their lives.   2. How true is it that all or most prisoners claim they are innocent? Debunk the myth: All or at least most prisoners claim they're innocent. The myth that all or most prisoners claim they're innocent is not supported by evidence: in reality, the majority of prisoners admit guilt, and only a minority persistently claim innocence after conviction.   Actual Prisoner Claims Research shows that only about 15% of incarcerated individuals claim innocence of their convicted crime, while most acknowledge their involvement. Surveys and criminology experts consistently debunk the misconception that virtually everyone behind bars claims they were wrongly accused.   Why the Myth Persists Popular culture, media portrayals, and social beliefs have promoted the idea that prisoners routinely deny guilt. However, in prison communities, claiming innocence without supporting evidence can lead to skepticism or conflict among other inmates. Many prisoners openly admit to their crimes, especially those caught "red-handed" or who accepted plea deals.   Wrongful Convictions Rates While it's true some prisoners are innocent, wrongful conviction estimates are typically around 4-6% of the prison population—meaning most inmates are not wrongly imprisoned. Innocence projects and exonerations highlight the reality of lawful errors, but these cases represent a small fraction compared to the millions serving sentences.   Parole and Innocence Dilemma Systems often require prisoners to admit guilt for parole consideration, which creates a dilemma for those who are actually innocent and refuse to confess falsely. Some innocent prisoners remain incarcerated for years, or die in prison, rather than falsely admit guilt. Conclusion In summary, most prisoners do not claim innocence, and the belief that they do is a persistent myth not backed by actual inmate behavior or data.   3. How true is that high conviction rates contribute to a reduction in crime? Debunk the myth: high conviction rates contribute to a reduction in crime. High conviction rates do not significantly contribute to a reduction in crime, according to a broad consensus of contemporary research and statistical analysis.   Marginal Impact of Incarceration and Conviction Studies from multiple decades indicate that increases in incarceration or conviction rates have only a limited—and declining—effect on overall crime rates. For instance, between 1980 and 2000, a 10% increase in incarceration rates was associated with only a 2–4% reduction in crime, and after 2000, this correlation disappeared, with incarceration accounting for virtually none of the subsequent drop in crime. Most major declines in crime since the 1990s are attributed to factors such as an aging population, increased employment, higher graduation rates, and new policing strategies—not higher conviction rates.   No Effect on Violent Crime The crime reduction associated with higher conviction and incarceration rates is limited almost exclusively to property crimes, with research consistently finding no positive impact on violent crime rates. This is because as incarceration and conviction rates rise, more people sentenced are low-level or infrequent offenders, while sentences for violent and repeat offenders would occur regardless of changes in conviction rates.   Potential for Negative Effects High conviction and incarceration rates, especially when concentrated in certain communities, may even increase crime by destabilizing families and communities, leading to diminished economic opportunity and increased poverty. Over-punishing people at low risk of committing crimes can sometimes make them higher risk, further undermining public safety.   Decoupling Crime and Conviction National and state-level trends illustrate that crime rates can drop even when incarceration and conviction rates also fall, as seen in Utah and other jurisdictions. This evidence demonstrates that high conviction rates are not a necessary ingredient for reducing crime, and policy should focus on more effective approaches.   Conclusion In summary: The myth that high conviction rates lead to a significant reduction in crime is not supported by evidence; instead, crime is better addressed through social investments, improved policing strategies, and community supports.   4. How true is it that the U.S. has the best judicial system in the world? Debunk the myth: The U.S. has the best judicial system in the world. The claim that the U.S. has the best judicial system in the world is a myth; internationally, many other countries consistently outperform the U.S. in key areas of justice, fairness, and transparency.   International Rankings According to the World Justice Project and global indices, the U.S. typically ranks outside the top ten in rule of law, judicial effectiveness, and civil justice. For example, in the 2023 Rule of Law Index, the U.S. ranked 23rd globally—behind countries like Finland, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.   Systemic Criticisms The American judicial system faces criticism for issues such as politicization, systemic bias, unequal access to justice, and inconsistent outcomes due to its highly decentralized federal structure. Challenges also include high incarceration rates, lengthy pretrial detentions, and disparities affected by socioeconomic status and race.   Global Exemplars Countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and the Netherlands are routinely recognized for their more transparent, efficient, and equitable judicial systems. These systems tend to offer swifter trials, more consistent rulings, and higher public trust.   Conclusion While the U.S. judicial system has strengths, particularly in constitutional rights and legal precedent, it is not the top-ranked globally, and several countries offer judicial systems that are considered fairer and more effective by international standards.   5. How true is it that wrongful convictions of the innocent rarely occur? Debunk the myth: Wrongful convictions of the innocent rarely occur. The myth that wrongful convictions of the innocent rarely occur is decisively false; evidence shows that wrongful convictions are more common than most people realize, with thousands affected each year.   Wrongful Conviction Statistics Conservative estimates suggest that more than 10,000 innocent people are convicted every year in the United States alone. Since 1989, at least 3,175 people have been exonerated after being wrongfully convicted, spending a collective over 27,000 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. Recent studies estimate that 3-6% of all prisoners in the U.S. could be innocent, representing tens of thousands of people currently incarcerated for crimes they did not commit.   Common Causes of Wrongful Convictions Eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause, involved in up to 72% of convictions later overturned by DNA evidence. Other significant causes are false confessions, official misconduct, flawed forensic evidence, and perjury or incentivized informant testimony. Flaws in legal defense, such as overburdened or underfunded public defenders, also contribute.   Ongoing Problem and Impact Exonerations are increasing, with record high numbers reported in recent years, indicating growing recognition but also the persistent scale of wrongful convictions. The consequences for the innocent are devastating, including years or decades lost to incarceration, destroyed reputations, and major financial, social, and emotional harm. The data exposes a justice system in which errors and failures can—and do—result in the punishment of innocent people much more often than is popularly believed. Conclusion In summary, wrongful convictions are a significant, recurring problem in the justice system, directly debunking the myth that they are rare.     6. How true is it that a criminal defendant is more likely to lie than a police officer? Debunk the myth: A criminal defendant is more likely to lie than a police officer. The myth that a criminal defendant is more likely to lie than a police officer is not supported by evidence or logic—police officers also regularly lie, both inside and outside the courtroom, and their profession sometimes incentivizes deceit as part of investigations or to protect themselves or colleagues.   Police Honesty and Incentives Law enforcement officers are often held to high standards of honesty, but documented cases and research show systematic police deceit, including lying during investigations, testimony, and even covering up misconduct. Police officers sometimes justify lying as serving a greater good, such as securing convictions, and organizational pressures can further reinforce dishonest behaviors.   Criminal Defendants and Credibility Criminal defendants face strong biases—courts and juries may assume they are less credible due to their status, background, or alleged behavior. However, there is no empirical evidence that simply being a defendant makes one more likely to lie than other participants in the justice system.   Comparative Evidence Officers sometimes lie to obtain confessions (legally permitted in interrogations), protect colleagues, or enhance their own careers. Systematic studies and commissions (e.g., the Mollen Commission on NYPD) have documented widespread police perjury and falsification of official records. The adversarial legal system frequently relies on credibility assessments because testimony from police officers and defendants is often conflicting.   Conclusion Both criminal defendants and police officers have complex motivations and pressures affecting truthfulness, and being a police officer does not inherently make someone more honest than a defendant. The myth persists due to biases and cultural perceptions, not due to any factual basis or evidence.   7. How true is it that if someone gets arrested, they must have done something wrong? Debunk the myth: If someone gets arrested, they must have done something wrong. That's a great myth to unpack, because it touches on justice, fairness, and common misconceptions. Myth : If someone is arrested, they must have done something wrong. Reality : Being arrested does not equal guilt or proof of wrongdoing. Here’s why:   1. Arrest ≠ Conviction An arrest is when police take someone into custody based on suspicion  or probable cause, not proof. Conviction only happens after due process: formal charges, evidence considered in court, and a verdict.   2. Presumption of Innocence In democratic legal systems, people are innocent until proven guilty . This principle exists precisely because arrests can be mistaken or unjustified.   3. Mistaken Identity & False Accusations Innocent people get arrested due to misidentification, false reports, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Examples: eyewitness errors, unreliable informants, or fabricated evidence have all led to wrongful arrests.   4. Biases & Systemic Issues Studies show certain groups are disproportionately arrested because of racial, social, or economic biases—not necessarily because they commit more crimes.   5.Later Exonerations The Innocence Project has highlighted many cases where DNA evidence freed people who spent years in prison after wrongful arrests and convictions.   Conclusion Bottom line: An arrest is not proof of guilt. It’s only an indication that police believe further investigation or legal proceedings are justified. Judging someone guilty just because they were arrested  ignores due process, the presumption of innocence, and the very real issue of wrongful arrests.   8. How true is it that no one would confess to a crime unless they're guilty in some way? Debunk the myth: No one would confess to a crime unless they're guilty in some way. The belief that no one would confess to a crime unless they're guilty is a myth; in reality, many people falsely confess to crimes they did not commit due to psychological, situational, and systemic pressures.   Why Innocent People Confess False confessions happen for various reasons beyond actual guilt, including mental illness, intellectual impairments, and vulnerability to authoritative pressure. Intense police interrogations can break down even mentally healthy adults, especially when conducted over long hours or with deceptive tactics. Juveniles are particularly susceptible to confess due to their impressionability and desire to please authority figures.   Types of False Confessions False confessions typically fall into three categories: Voluntary : Given without external pressure, often to protect someone, as a result of mental illness, or as self-punishment. Compliant : Made under pressure to escape stressful interrogations, with hope of leniency or reward, or to end the ordeal. Persuaded : Confessors come to believe they are guilty due to suggestive or manipulative interrogation tactics.   Systemic and Legal Factors Police are legally allowed to lie about evidence to suspects, which can cause confusion and panic, leading innocent people to confess. Threats, promises of lighter sentences, or plea bargaining can also coerce confessions from innocent suspects. Studies show false confessions are a significant cause of wrongful convictions, with DNA exoneration cases sometimes proving innocence despite confessions.   Evidence and Research Academic research and real-world cases repeatedly demonstrate that innocent people confess to crimes, debunking the myth. Nearly 30% of people exonerated by DNA evidence in the United States had confessed to crimes they did not commit. Awareness of false confession mechanisms has led to reforms, such as videotaping interrogations to protect against coercion.   Conclusion In conclusion, confession is not irrefutable proof of guilt—innocent people sometimes confess due to powerful psychological, procedural, and social factors, which are well-documented in law, psychology, and criminal justice research.   9. How true is it that forensics evidence provides conclusive proof of culpability? Debunk the myth: Forensics evidence provides conclusive proof of culpability.   10. How true is it that the appeals process will correct any miscarriages of justice?   Debunk the myth: The appeals process will correct any miscarriages of justice. The myth that the appeals process will correct any miscarriages of justice is false. While appeals provide a mechanism to challenge convictions or sentences, they have important limitations that often prevent them from fully correcting miscarriages of justice.   Reasons Appeals Don't Guarantee Correction of Miscarriages of Justice No New Evidence or Retrial : Appeals generally do not involve a new trial or introduction of new evidence; they focus on errors or legal issues in the original trial. This means that if crucial evidence was missed or withheld during the trial, an appeal may not adequately address that miscarriage. High Legal Threshold : The appellate courts require proof of specific legal errors or procedural unfairness, not just that the verdict was wrong. Many wrongful convictions persist because the courts do not deem the errors sufficient to overturn the conviction. Limited Scope on Fresh Evidence : Courts often restrict appeals from considering fresh evidence unless it was unavailable at trial due to exceptional reasons. This restricts the ability to correct cases where new proof of innocence arises post-conviction. Reluctance and Procedural Barriers : The courts and appellate systems are sometimes reluctant to overturn verdicts to preserve finality and efficiency. Legal aid and representation issues further limit successful appeals for those without sufficient resources or legal knowledge. Official Misconduct and Systemic Issues : Many miscarriages of justice stem from misconduct (e.g., police or prosecutorial wrongdoing) that taints the entire process. Appeals may not sufficiently address these systemic problems, which undermine fairness beyond just the trial errors.   Key Misconception Appeals Are Not Automatic Corrective Mechanisms : Appeals are legal reviews focused on trial fairness, not guarantees of correcting wrongful convictions or miscarriages of justice. Winning an appeal might result in a new trial, reduced sentence, or overturned conviction, but this is far from assured or immediate.   Conclusion In summary, while the appeals process is important for justice, it is not a foolproof mechanism that will correct every miscarriage of justice due to procedural limits, evidentiary restrictions, and broader systemic challenges.     11. How true is it that eyewitness identification of a perpetrator is consistently reliable? Debunk the myth: Eyewitness identification of a perpetrator is consistently reliable. The myth that eyewitness identification of a perpetrator is consistently reliable is false. Eyewitness testimony is often convincing but can be highly fallible and prone to errors. Research shows that memory is malleable and subject to distortion without the witness's awareness, meaning eyewitness identification is vulnerable to misidentifications even by confident witnesses.   Key factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness identification include: Speed of identification : Faster decisions tend to be more accurate. For example, identifications made within six seconds can be twice as accurate as those made more slowly. Confidence level : High confidence can correlate with higher accuracy but does not guarantee it, as confident misidentifications also occur. Face-recognition ability : Individuals vary in their capability to recognize faces, significantly influencing the reliability of their identifications. Lineup conditions : Proper lineup procedures (fair lineup, unbiased instructions, and blind administration) improve accuracy. Unreliable memory : Memory is not a video recording but a reconstructive process influenced by stress, time delay, and post-event information.   DNA exonerations have revealed that a large proportion of wrongful convictions involved mistaken eyewitness identification, underscoring its fallibility. Despite jurors and the public often giving great weight to eyewitness testimony, scientific research cautions that it should not be accepted uncritically. Eyewitness memory is generally reliable only if it is uncontaminated and proper testing procedures are followed.   Conclusion Therefore, eyewitness identification should be carefully scrutinized, with consideration of confidence, decision time, lineup fairness, and individual differences, to avoid wrongful convictions based on unreliable eyewitness memory.     12. How true is it that the judge is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system? Debunk the myth: The judge is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system. The myth that "the judge is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system" can be debunked by understanding the different roles, powers, and limits of judges compared to other key actors like prosecutors, defense attorneys, and juries.   Judicial Powers and Limits Judges play an important role in presiding over trials, maintaining order, ruling on the admissibility of evidence, instructing juries about legal standards, and sentencing convicted defendants. They ensure court proceedings are fair and follow legal rules. However, judges’ power is bounded by laws, legal precedents, and checks such as appeals that can overturn their decisions. Judges do not act alone; they interpret law but do not create it, and their discretion is limited by legislations and procedural rules.   Prosecutorial Power and Influence Prosecutors wield significant power in the criminal justice system, especially before cases reach trial. They decide which cases to pursue, what charges to file, whether to offer plea deals, and whether to dismiss cases altogether. These decisions often have a greater impact on case outcomes than the judge’s rulings during the trial. Prosecutors influence the course of justice through discretion in charging and negotiation, shaping the system’s functioning more broadly than judges typically do.   Other Key Actors and Checks Defense attorneys protect the accused’s rights and challenge prosecutorial power, while juries serve as ultimate fact-finders in many trials by deciding guilt based on evidence presented. This system of checks and balances means no single actor, including judges, holds absolute power. Instead, power is distributed among various participants who interact to ensure fairness and justice.   Conclusion While judges have crucial responsibilities and control court proceedings, they are not the supreme power in the criminal justice system. Prosecutors often have more influence over the initiation and resolution of cases, and the system’s design distributes power among judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and juries. Thus, the claim that judges are the most powerful is a myth; power in the criminal justice system is balanced and shared among multiple actors.    Need more independent verification to challenge these views? Ask Google AI                                   Ask Claude                                      Ask Copilot Are you lulled into serving elites? The more you passively accept these myths, instead of unpacking the falsehoods for what they are, the easier for elites to exploit you. They oversee media production that fan the flames of fear, much to their own benefit.   They benefit when you slip into complicity violating the rights of the wrongly convicted innocent. You then unwittingly becoming an 'innocence offender' with your complicity in denying the innocent their full rights. Yes, you become a sycophant to elites who benefit from this status quo.   Let’s stop spreading the cultural cancer of adversarialism The more you accept these widely accepted falsehoods, the more easily you are exploited by elites. The more invested in our adversarialist legal system, despite its many faults, the more these elites may try to manipulate your views to defend it.   Need-response prioritizes your inflexible need  over the adversarial law of politics and the judicial system. Those systems routinely fail to faithfully address your affected needs, or to help you remove pain, or help you restore wellness. Only need-response aims to do that. Sources Hal Arkowitz & Scott O. Lilienfeld (2010). Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts , Scientific American . Accessed 2025-08-28.

Dr. Carrie Leonetti identifies a list of 27 factors contributing to wrongly convicting the innocent. They complement the Estimated Innocence Form . IMAGE: Dr. Carrie Leonetti, Auckland University Since creating the Estimated Innocence Form  in 2019, Dr. Carrie Leonetti   of Aukland University (originally of the University of Oregon) independently identified a list of predictable contributors to wrongful convictions. If you can think of anything to add to such a checklist, comment below .   You can see her full 2021 article here  that publicized her innocence checklist.   Almost anyone in the innocence movement can identify the five most basic contributors. Official misconduct. Eyewitness misidentification, especially tainted misidentifications . Incentivized (jail) informant. Junk science or improperly applied forensics science. False and often a coerced confession.   Inadequate legal defense can be added. Along with a host of other factors, like tunnel vision investigations , confirmation bias , noble cause corruption , prosecutorial misconduct like Brady violations , sunk value fallacy , political pressures , and more.   Leonetti’s list identifies no less than 27 factors correlating with wrongful convictions. She groups these factors into clusters for easier review.   Refer to the comparison chart below that illustrates which of her identified factors leading to wrongly convicting the innocent fits closely with the Estimated Innocence Form. And which items she identifies is lacking in the EIF. Along with items in the EIF missing in her checklist. Her “innocence checklist” supports my aim to develop an empirically sound basis for more quickly identifying viable innocence claims. Unlike Professor Leonetti, I am already putting my list into action, with the downloadable EIF .   Read the list for yourself below. Click on each listed item to explore it in more detail below. Clicking the header above each paragraph below returns you to this navigable list.   If you have downloaded the EIF and find any of her factors missing an important factor, share your observations in the comments below. If you can think of anything we have both missed, you can add it to the comments below. Keep us on our toes. You can do your part to help us improve how we all transparently identify and clear the wrongly convicted innocent. INNOCENCE CHECKLIST Cluster I: Government Misconduct (1)   Prosecutorial Disclosure (2)   False Evidence (3)   Coaching (4) Witness Hiding (5) Deficient Defense (6) Forensic Misconduct (7)   Police Misconduct Cluster II: Material New Evidence (8) Reasonable Doubt (9) Alternate Suspect (10) New Science (11) Presence (12) Diminished Mental Capacity (13)   Recantations (14)   Impeachment (15) Incentives (16) Changing Science (17) Biased or Unvalidated Scientific Evidence (18) Corroboration (19) Maintenance of Innocence Cluster III: Government Negligence and Other Forms of Misconduct (20)   Missing or Inadequate Corroboration (21) Unreliable Eyewitness Identification (22) Questionable Confessions (23) Inconsistent Theories (24) Police Corruption (25) Snitch Testimony (26) Inconsistent Witnesses (27) Pretrial Publicity   Explore each of these in a little more detail below, as found in pages 145 through 149 in her academic article .   Cluster I: Government Misconduct   (1) Prosecutorial Disclosure Failure of prosecutors to divulge favorable evidence, regardless of whether such failure meets the doctrinal test of Brady . If suppression is unintentional, it should count as a factor in favor of wrongful conviction when the withheld information is reasonably likely to relate to the accuracy of the trial. If suppression is intentional, it should count as a factor in favor of wrongful conviction irrelevant of the likelihood that the withheld information relates to the accuracy of the trial.   Stock image: Collecting evidence at a crime scene (2) False Evidence Prosecutorial presentation of materially false evidence, regardless of the state of mind of the prosecutor who examined the witness. (3) Coaching Inappropriate preparation of prosecutorial witnesses.   (4) Witness Hiding Intentionally securing the unavailability of defense witnesses.   (5) Deficient Defense Failure of defense counsel to investigate or develop potentially viable defenses, especially alibi claims, including failure to retain scientific experts to test, retest, or challenge questionable prosecution forensic-science evidence, regardless of whether such failure meets the doctrinal test of Strickland .   (6) Forensic Misconduct Intentional misconduct or gross negligence by forensic analysts or the crime laboratory that processed evidence during the time period that evidence relating to the defendant’s case was processed (e.g., “ dry labbing ” or undetected contamination), regardless of whether there is evidence that items specifically relating to the defendant’s case were contaminated or misprocessed, particularly if the misconduct was not discovered promptly through laboratory audit procedures. Stock image: Police misconduct gets felt the most by those most targeted by police. (7) Police Misconduct Police misconduct or gross negligence either during investigation of the defendant’s case or a pattern of misconduct across cases that could include the defendant’s, such as lost or destroyed evidence; material record-keeping omissions; coercing or inducing confessions, even if inducements do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation (e.g., lying to a suspect about evidence); inducing false testimony; or intentionally withholding information from prosecutors.   Cluster II: Material New Evidence   (8) Reasonable Doubt Discovery of evidence unknown at the time of trial (regardless of whether it could have been discovered through due diligence ), the presence of which now creates a plausible theory under which the defendant could be innocent or is reasonably likely to cause a reasonable, disinterested person to harbor a reasonable doubt about guilt.   (9) Alternate Suspect Evidence tending to inculpate a suspect other than the defendant, including a DNA match from crucial biological evidence to any individual other than the defendant from an item of material crime-scene evidence (even if such a match is not conclusively exculpatory); confessions or incriminating admissions by alternate suspects; video footage or other electronic surveillance records documenting the presence of an alternate suspect at the time of the crime; or identification by a witness of someone other than the defendant as the perpetrator.   (10) New Science The existence of scientific evidence that either was not available or was available but not performed prior to trial, the favorable results of which are likely to exculpate the defendant.   (11) Presence Evidence casting doubt on the defendant’s presence or ability to be present at the scene of the crime.   (12) Diminished Mental Capacity The presence of a serious mental illness or intellectual disability in the defendant prior to and/or during trial, including one that derived from youth, immaturity, and lack of formal education, regardless of whether such illness or disability was known to the court or defense counsel at trial or whether such illness or disability rendered the defendant incompetent to stand trial under Dusky v. United States .   (13) Recantations Recantation or subsequent statement(s) that is (are) materially inconsistent with trial testimony by significant prosecution witnesses.   (14) Impeachment New information discrediting a key prosecution witness’s ability to observe, recall, or recount the subject matter of their testimony accurately or truthfully, including physical or mental health issues. Stock image: Authorities risk exploiting the vulnerabilities in some populations, sowing division. (15) Incentives Benefits given or promises or threats made to significant prosecution witnesses, including leniency in their own criminal cases.   (16) Changing Science A significant change in the state of prosecutorial expert evidence , including a change in the consensus of experts in a field about the significance or interpretation of results. This factor should apply to any case in which the evidence, now known to be unreliable, was presented, including expert testimony that a fire was arson based on burn patterns, testimony that a hair taken from the defendant matched a hair taken from the crime scene based on microscopic comparison, testimony that bitemarks found on a victim or at a crime scene matched the defendant’s bite, hypnotically induced testimony, or testimony that a baby’s death was caused by violent shaking based on shaken-baby syndrome .   (17) Biased or Unvalidated Scientific Evidence Forensic analyses that were obtained in the context of unnecessary biasing information and forensic-science testimony that was inaccurate, misleading, or oversold, regardless of the good/bad faith of the analyst.   (18) Corroboration Material evidence significantly corroborating the defendant’s contested testimony or theory of the case.   (19) Maintenance of Innocence The defendant’s consistent, explicit, personal maintenance of innocence.   Cluster III: Government Negligence and Other Forms of Misconduct   (20) Missing or Inadequate Corroboration Absence of physical evidence to corroborate crucial witness testimony or a defendant’s confession under circumstances in which such corroborating evidence would reasonably be expected to exist and be obtainable. Stock image: Eyewitnesses do not always get a good look at the culprit's face (21) Unreliable Eyewitness Identification Introduction at trial of a stranger eye-witness identification of the defendant when that identification either (a) was obtained from procedures proven to be suggestive by social science evidence, regardless of whether such procedure has been deemed unnecessarily suggestive as a matter of constitutional or common law and regardless of whether evidence relating to the lack of reliability of the procedure was introduced at trial (defense expert testimony, cross-examination, or closing argument) or (b) was not significantly corroborated by other evidence, under circumstances in which such corroborating evidence would reasonably be expected to exist.   (22) Questionable Confessions Introduction at trial of the defendant’s confession or substantial inculpatory admissions that were obtained through coercive interrogation techniques like the Reid method of interrogation; confessions obtained from highly vulnerable suspects; confessions obtained after prolonged detention, isolation, when the suspect was sleep deprived, or in response to evidence ploys and other misrepresentations; and confessions obtained without video-taping or other recording.   (23) Inconsistent Theories Use by prosecutors of a theory of the defendant’s case inconsistent with the prosecution theory in another closely related case.   (24) Police Corruption Compelling evidence that law-enforcement agents who investigated the defendant’s case engaged in corrupt conduct during the course of another investigation (e.g., stealing or intentionally “misplacing” evidence, planting evidence, giving or accepting bribes, providing “protection” to criminal syndicates, frequenting sex workers, using illicit drugs, knowingly violating the constitutional rights of suspects, or “ testilying ”).   (25) Snitch Testimony Material testimony of an incentivized informant or witness cooperating in exchange for a material benefit, regardless of whether any incentive for cooperation was disclosed to the defense prior to trial or introduced in evidence.   (26) Inconsistent Witnesses Prosecutorial introduction of testimony from two or more witnesses whose testimony is materially inconsistent with one another.   (27) Pretrial Publicity Sensationalized media coverage of the case prior to trial, particularly if it involved commentary by prosecutors or police officers about the defendant’s prior criminal record, character, credibility, reputation, or inculpatory statements; physical evidence; the testimony, criminal record, character, reputation, or credibility of witnesses, including the victim; or evidence that was ruled inadmissible at trial.   References: Carrie Leonetti, “The Innocence Checklist,” 58 American Criminal Law Review 97  (2021). Leonetti's Innocence Checklist Model, People's Commission for Integrity in Criminal Justice. Medword, D. (2005). The Zeal Deal: Prosecutorial Resistance to Post-Conviction Claims of Innocence, Law, Political Science 125 . DOI: 10.18574/nyu/9780814796245.003.0008 ADDENDA These additional academic articles add to the discourse of how we can identify a wrongful conviction independent of legal arguments. Predicting Erroneous Convictions: A Social Science Approach to Miscarriages of Justice   Gould, J., Carrano, J., Leo, R., Young, J. (2012). Predicting Erroneous Convictions: A Social Science Approach to Miscarriages of Justice, unpublished report from a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice. Award number: 2009-IJ-CX-4110.   These four academics apply quantitative and qualitative analysis to predict likely outcomes of erroneous convictions. Which can help to properly weight those factors with the most significant risk for a likely wrongful conviction of the innocent (of those who had no role in the reported crime). Less important yet vital factors would then be weighted less.   For example, an improved Estimated Innocence Form could assign a key correlating factor like “forensic error” with a much higher number than a lesser risk, such as a noncoerced “false confession”. See their key findings below.   Ten key correlating factors These 10 factors help explain why an innocent defendant, once indicted, ends up erroneously convicted rather than released. the age of the defendant, criminal history of the defendant, the punitiveness of the state, Brady violations, forensic error, a weak defense, a weak prosecution case, a family defense witness, an inadvertent misidentification, and lying by a non-eyewitness   Other correlating factors Additional factors point to likely indictment, but the risk for an erroneous conviction gets mitigated by the occasional “near miss” of acquittal or dropped charges. For example: false confessions, criminal justice official error, and and race effects.   Tunnel vision as a guiding factor Tunnel vision plays a significant role that hinders self-correction of such factors, increasing the risk of a near miss resulting in an erroneous conviction. Identifying Patterns Across the Six Canonical Factors Underlying Wrongful Convictions Berube, R., Wilford, M. M., Redlich, A. D., & Wang, Y. (2022). Identifying Patterns Across the Six Canonical Factors Underlying Wrongful Convictions. The Wrongful Conviction Law Review , 3 (3), 166–195. https://doi.org/10.29173/wclawr82 .   AI-generated summary The article addresses a gap in wrongful conviction research by investigating how canonical factors—which include mistaken witness identification, false confession, and official misconduct—do not occur in isolation but instead appear in systematic patterns.  The research used latent class analysis on data from the National Registry of Exonerations to categorize cases into distinct patterns of contributing factors. The study identified four distinct "latent classes" of how these canonical factors co-occur, revealing several noteworthy patterns:  Perjury and official misconduct often appear together. Specifically, perjury or false accusation (P/FA) and official misconduct (OM) co-occur frequently. High rates of mistaken witness identification (MWID) correlate with low rates of other factors. This suggests that mistaken identification can sometimes be the primary cause of a conviction, overshadowing other contributing factors. False guilty pleas are most common in cases involving investigative failures. This class of cases often features false guilty pleas, suggesting that these pleas often stem from inadequate investigations.  The findings provide a more nuanced understanding of how wrongful convictions occur, moving beyond a single-factor analysis to an observation of how a combination of factors can lead to miscarriages of justice. The study's results offer critical insights for developing more effective reforms within the criminal justice system. Measuring Self-Reported Wrongful Convictions Among Prisoners Loeffler, C.E., Hyatt, J. & Ridgeway, G. (2019). Measuring Self-Reported Wrongful Convictions Among Prisoners. J Quant Criminol 35, 259–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-018-9381-1 Abstract Objectives Estimate the frequency of self-reported factual innocence in non-capital cases within a state population of prisoners. Methods We conducted a survey of a population sample of state prisoners who were asked to anonymously report their involvement in the crimes for which they were most recently convicted. To assess the validity of verifiable responses, prisoner self-report data were compared to aggregate conviction and demographic information derived from administrative records. To assess the validity of unverifiable responses, we developed a non-parametric test to estimate the probability of false innocence claims. Results We estimate that wrongful convictions occur in 6% of criminal convictions leading to imprisonment in an intake population of state prisoners. This estimate masks a considerable degree of conviction-specific variability ranging from a low of 2% in DUI convictions to a high of 40% in rape convictions. Implausible or false innocence claims are estimated to occur in 2% of cases. Implausible or false innocence claims are estimated to occur in 2% of cases. Conclusions The present investigation demonstrates that survey methods can provide bounded estimates of factual innocence claims within a discrete and known population. The resulting estimates, the first to formally separate claims of legal and factual innocence and to incorporate a formal measure of response plausibility, suggest that prisoners themselves are very often willing to self-report the correctness of their convictions. At the same time, a considerable minority indicate that procedural weaknesses with the administration of justice occurred in their cases. And, a distinct minority, with considerable offense variation, maintain that they are completely innocent of the charges against them. Liebman et al. ( 1999 ) provides estimates of U.S. legal errors beyond factual innocence in capital cases.

Perhaps you could use some guidance as you navigate this pioneering new service. We meet in person online, using Zoom. Each session is relatively brief, only 25 minutes. You can always stack two in a row if you need more time.

We start with SMS using your phone number. You can then opt to using FB Messenger or WhatsApp. When ready to start at your scheduled time, simply text to the number 248-872-5500 and text the following message: "This is [YOUR NAME], and I am ready to begin." You should then receive a prompt reply. Have ready any questions or concerns you need to cover. Ten minutes can go by fast. You can always follow up at any time with an email to engage@anankelogy.org.

We start with SMS using your phone number. You can then opt to using FB Messenger or WhatsApp. When ready to start at your scheduled time, simply text to the number 248-872-5500 and text the following message: "This is [YOUR NAME], and I am ready to begin." You should then receive a prompt reply. Have ready any questions or concerns you need to cover. Ten minutes can go by fast. You can always follow up at any time with an email to engage@anankelogy.org.

Anankelogy Principles A-Foundational - B-Basic - C-General - D-Pain - E-Conflict - F-Power - G-Structural - H-Love You will find these principles organized into eight distinct types. Foundational Principles lay the basis for anankelogy as a unique science. These create the foundation for the discipline study of need . As objective phenomena, many aspects of our needs can be examined by the scientific method . Basic Principles ground aspects of your experience with needs in the science of anankelogy. These establish anankelogy as a unique social science . General Principles add wisdom to experiencing needs anchored in the science of anankelogy. These provide insight into what this new profession of need-response can do that other professional fields cannot . Pain Principles start applying anankelogy to be more "need-responsive" in our lives. These apply primarily at the personal human problem level. Conflict Principles offer some insight for negotiating disputes you have with others. These apply primarily at the interpersonal human problem level. Authority Principles apply anankelogy to the legitimacy of those in positions of influential power. These apply primarily at the power human problem level. Law Principles apply anankelogy to the point of having laws and unwritten norms. These apply primarily at the structural human problem level. Love Principles cap these need-focused concepts with mutual respect for each other's needs. These give context to all the other types as we function best when we support others to function their best. One word for such positive regard is love. Get these inspiring principles in your inbox once a week! First name* Email* Join I want to subscribe to your mailing list. * A01 Foundational Principle A natural need is an objective fact. The more you drill down to the beginning of an experienced need, the more you find what exists prior to any human intervention. You don’t merely believe you must have water or that you need a friend, you experience these needs as essential to your capacity to function. Your ability to function after quenching a thirst or leaning on a friend exist independent of subjective feelings, as objective facts. The less your natural needs resolve, the less you can objectively function. Read More A02 Foundational Principle A naturally prioritized need is an objective fact. The more something you require to fully function persists unsatisfied, the more your attention will be drawn toward its satisfaction. It matters less whether you believe you must prioritize it. The objective basis of your functioning subconsciously demands you focus on it over less pressing matters. Any subjective beliefs or feelings arrive after the objective fact of your life prioritizing it. The less you attend to your inflexibly prioritized needs, the less you can objectively function. Read More B01 Basic Principle Resolving needs improves wellness. Wellness is another word for function. All needs exist to serve function. The more you resolve your needs, the better you can function. The more you eat well, the better you can function. You eat, breathe, connect with friends and enjoy moments of solitude all for the sake of being able to function through life. The less your needs resolve, or the less you attend to your prioritized needs, the less you can function. Or the less well you will be. Where there is no function to serve, there is no need. Read More B02 Basic Principle Emotions personally convey needs. The less you can function because of some lack or some threat, the more your body will emote you do something to replenish that lack or remove that threat. Such responses are automatic. Your body conveys your needs to maintain function. You don’t even have to feel it, though you often do on some level. Where there is no need to convey, there is no emotion. Read More B03 Basic Principle Your emotions prioritize your existence. The more you sense some threat, even a mild risk to your safety, your emotions will automatically prioritize your continued existence. Without your assured continuance, little else matters to your life. Or you may no longer be around, or at least at your current capacity, for anything else to matter. Once triggered, it’s next to impossible to prioritize anything else. Read More B04 Basic Principle Your feelings alert you to the status of your needs. The more your functioning becomes limited from some unresolved need, the more your feelings call attention to it. Initially, such feelings remain vague. Then often out of the blue, they turn alarmingly urgent. Usually with something you could do right away to ease the pressure. You could react on this feeling. Or you could dig deeper into what your feelings can only suggest is really happening. Properly responding dissolves its intensity. Read More B05 Basic Principle Beliefs exist to serve needs. The more your interpreted perceptions help you to function in life, the more they crystallize into useful beliefs. The less relevant a fact is to your functioning, the less you cling to it. It matters little if you agree or disagree whether the sun will someday go nova. You can hardly be persuaded against holding as true what helps you survive today, or helps you get by, or helps you get ahead in life. Read More B06 Basic Principle You believe what you need to believe. The more a belief proves vital to your existence, the more it rises in your hierarchy of accepted truths. The more your life seems or actually depends on something being so, the more you must naturally defend it. The less relevant to your required means to function, the less you defend it. The less your needs resolve, the more tightly you cling to any belief you perceive helping you get by. Read More B07 Basic Principle Your biases prioritize your needs. The less resolve a need, the more your attention naturally turns to seek its relief. You find you must prioritize whatever you find available to ease the emotional pressure. Sometimes, you hit on exactly what your life requires. Your prioritized thinking leads you in a positive direction. Other times, you prioritize generalizations that offer hope for relief. Such biases easily lead you astray, and in pain. Read More B08 Basic Principle All beliefs include error. The more you generalize, the less likely the accuracy of those beliefs. If irrelevant to your life, then the result errors can pass unnoticed. As a factory worker, it matters little if I believe Abraham Lincoln was born in Illinois or Kentucky. If my livelihood depends on it, I better know he was born in Kentucky. There will always be facts beyond the reach of your conclusions. Humility helps you stay informed. Read More B09 Basic Principle All your behaviors serve your needs. The less some action contributes to your wellbeing, the more open you are to change them. The more an action enables you to function, the more likely to repeat that action. Even the most trivial of behaviors must align with what you need to function, or you will likely change it. If you keep giving cash to that homeless guy and then run out of cash, you inevitably change your behavior. Read More B10 Basic Principle Needs resolve and evolve. The more you satisfy a recurring need, like drinking water to quench a thirst, the more your repeated action predictably leaves you satisfied. The more you pacify your recurring needs with some alternative, like indulging in junk food for each meal, the less your hunger subsides. The more you habitually rely on alternatives, the more your life contracts to accommodate such limits. Read More View this list organized into these topics 1 2 3 4 5 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 6 A-Foundational B-Basic C-General D-Pain E-Conflict F-Authority G-Law H-Love

There is no greater human authority than resolving needs with love. < Back H03 Love Principle List of all principles There is no greater human authority than resolving needs with love. Image: Pixabay – PublicDomainPictures (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you can effectively resolve your needs while supporting others to resolve theirs, the less cause for human authority to intervene. Such authorities typically emerge to address those needs not already resolved. The more you can stay atop of your needs, while engaging and supporting others to resolve their needs, you negate the role of impersonal authorities in your life. Description Which do you think is more likely? Since no one is above the law, we all must submit to every authority. OR The ultimate authority stems from being able to function well enough to respect each other. Anankelogy The more your needs fully resolve, the less of any role authority plays in your life. When social love incentivizes you to respect the needs of others in ways inspiring them to respect yours, you fulfill the purpose of authority. You model a greater authority. The more your internal motivation of love enables you to fully function, the less you require any external motivating pressure of authority. Rational-legal authority typically assumes an extrinsic motivation . You’re expected to respect the requirements of law out of fear of punishment if you don’t. Once drawn to a situation, authorities typically doubt your respect for needs that laws exist to serve. If they must get involved and you’re assumed to violate some rule, then you must deserve some kind of harsh treatment to motivate your conformity to law and order. Consequently, law enforcement typically overlooks intrinsic motivations . Such authorities generally presume that you only respect the needs of others if facing a reprimand. Such a presumption gets baked into law enforcement culture. Which easily blinds them from your intrinsic love-incentivizing motive to treat the needs of others as your own. Need-response Need-response seeks and encourages need-responders with a love-inspired intrinsic motivation to more fully resolve needs. Especially among lawyers and counselors disillusioned by the shortcomings of law-based and psychological-based services and institutions. If you’re motivated more from a platonic love to honor the needs of others as your own, you’re naturally less concerned about minutia of laws or arbitrary demands of authorities. You see beyond mere cognitive processes or social order. You habitually fulfill the purpose of laws—which is to serve needs—by how you routinely and properly respect the needs at hand. The purpose of authorities then gets intrinsically fulfilled. With intrinsic motivation of your love, you likely rise above the minimal standards of law. You stretch beyond the law’s emphasis on harm reduction to resolve unmet needs that cause harm. You intuitively realize how resolving needs more fully removes cause for harm. The more incentivized by love, the more compelled to transcend those social norms that limit full human potential. If necessary, you risk transgressing some social taboos to properly resolve needs. You may even be willing to risk jail to stand up for a cause of systemically overlooked needs. Love compels you to a higher standard than mere law and order. Reactive Problem Shortsighted authorities abound. Confirmation bias and tunnel vision easily blinds them to their own projected ethical issues , projected moral failings , projected cognitive biases , projected cognitive distortions , project logical fallacies , and their own projected extrinsic motivations . Nature compels balance wherever imbalance creeps in. The more a society slides toward imposing social norms, the more nature compels some within that society to counter such repressive norms. They find some proactive way to respond more effectively to the needs those norms exist to serve. Wellness compels it. Shortsighted authorities may easily misinterpret these norm-defiers as lawbreakers, and totally miss their higher commitment to transcend imposing norms to directly serve our needs. Instead of appreciating the deeper love motivating this fulfillment of law’s purpose to serve needs, such authorities may seek to punish such need-serving nonconformists, to coerce them into line as they expect others would force them into fearful conformity. Their rush to squash need-serving nonconformists blatantly squanders the human capital to develop more of our full human potential. The lawfare against Julian Assange despite the lack of evidence that he ever induced Chelsea Manning to leak provides a clear example, after he helped alert us to U.S. war atrocities in the Iraq . Fully resolving needs often goes against the grain of law . Responsive Solution Anankelogy recognizes many need-serving nonconformists as “transspirits ”. I am one. A transspirit intuitively transcends divisive social norms to connect at a deeper level, to resolve needs. Even if resisted by the authorities. History provides many examples. Dr. King. Ghandi. Saint Paul. Jesus, Siddhartha Gautama, Lao Tzu, Hillel the Elder, and many more. Each transcended established norms to connect deeper with life, to address needs more fully and directly. Even if risking retribution from the authorities. As Jesus put it in Matthew 5:27: “I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.” To properly resolve the inflexible needs which laws exist to serve presents as a greater authority than merely complying with arbitrary social norms. To resolve needs incentivized by love works far more effectively than placating authorities out of fear of possible punishment. Such transspirituality prioritizes love to resolve needs that supports improving wellness over law to relieve pain that risks perpetuating unwellness. Need-response asserts the higher effective authority of such transspirits, of those mastering love over laws. It assesses authorities’ responsiveness to our needs. It accredits authorities with “earned legitimacy ” when their impact results in improve wellness outcomes among their constituents. Need-response empirically rates any involved authorities at the lowest level of earned legitimacy , which is offensive illegitimacy . If processed in a need-response action , this could warrant a more severe response enforcement . Any self-righteous reaction, no matter how violent or nonviolent, can be deemed as validation of need-responders dedicated bravery to resolve needs over power-hungry self-serving authorities lacking legitimacy to impact the public. By sharp contrast, the transspirit seeks to properly resolve needs with love. Properly means they make sure resolving one set of needs does not negatively impact other needs. Love means they honor the needs of others as if they were their own needs—recognizing we are all connected, so the needs of others ultimately are their own needs. In short, there is no greater human authority than properly resolving needs with love. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: The more I try to respect others, the more some offensively disrespect me. While some authorities may indeed by shortsighted, I hate to be in a world without authorities. How can I tell the difference between a need-serving nonconformists and a selfish lawbreaker? I’d like to see how this works for others and the reactions they get before I stick my neck out. Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next

Pain is not the problem as much as the threats your pain tries to report. < Back D04 Pain Principle List of all principles Pain is not the problem as much as the threats your pain tries to report. Image: Pixabay – jplenio (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you react to your pain instead of addressing the needs behind that pain, the less you can address the source of that pain. The less addressed, the more it festers and can grow into a terrible problem of its own. The more you promptly respond to the warnings your pain seeks to report, the quicker you can resolve the underlying needs and remove its cause for pain. Description Which do you think is more likely? If you can get rid of your pain then your life will be much better. OR Improving your life by resolving more needs gets rid of your pain. Anankelogy Anankelogy isolates for types of pain. 1. Organic pain . Or “natural pain” or “natural discomfort”, this is the immediate displeasure reported by your body to warn you to remove some apparent threat. It’s usually sharp and instantaneous. 2. Residual pain . This type emerges after your natural pain fails to result in removing the threat. It continues to alert you to the threat. If partially removing the threat, you feel this as a dull pain. 3. Biostructural pain . This type emerges after your body seeks a different route to report the threat. You feel a headache or stomachache. If residual pain cannot get to remove the threat, maybe this will. 4. Metapain . This type emerges to warn you of the threat of too much pain. Your body complains it cannot adequately function when there are too many alarms going off. It warns of the threat of unheeded threats. Each type of pain serves as a messenger. Shooting the messenger leaves the threat or threats in place. Ignoring, suppressing, repressing, or trying to shift it onto others almost guarantees the threat to persist. The more your senses register a persisting threat, the more your pain comes back again and again. Only by addressing the needs behind those threats can your pain be fully removed. The more your needs resolve, the less cause to report threats in the form of pain. The more resolved your needs, the better you can function to remain responsive to new threats. Need-response Your level of functioning exists as an objective fact. Any subjective experience of your needs arises after the objective fact of something impacting your ability to function. That includes your pain. Feeling depressed, for example, may be a subjective experience. But it results from the objective fact of your inability to fully function as before. The pain of depression is less of a problem than these objective limitations crashing into your ability to fully function. Instead of offering you relief from depression, or from any other painful emotion, need-response helps you get to the sources of your pain. Instead of reacting to pain, it equips you to respond more effectively to the needs prompting such pain. Resolving those needs naturally clears up the pain. Need-response emphasizes a shared response to our needs, to get to the root of our pain. Reactive Problem Modernity promises to provide a life full of comforts. Pop philosophies suggest a pain-free life is our innate right. Ideologies imply that we should be able to reason our way out of suffering pain. Or take some medication to make the pain go away. These passive approaches to pain easily lead down the rabbit hole of addictions. You can only do so much to ease the pain of threats, of trauma, of agonizing problems, and a host of other sources of pain. A huge reason we get trapped in passive pain-relief stems from feeling powerless to do much if anything about the threats. If the threat comes from a neighbor whose actions remain privileged by law, you understandably feel pressured to cave. If the threat comes from a giant corporation backed by better paid lawyers and the elected officials they help elect with their campaign donations, then you understandably feel you must resign to your fate. If the threat comes from established norms cooked into the DNA of our daily lives, you may not even notice the source of such pain. Since you cannot change others but only your reactions to them, you typically feel pressured to adjust to these untouchable sources of your pain. You can mount protest, complain online, and write to your local officials. But as these tactics fail, you become increasingly accustomed to a growing level of residual pain, emerging biostructural pain, and intensifying metapain. Responsive Solution Need-response fills the gap missing in our legal systems by addressing the needs on each side of a conflict. The legal systems of the judiciary and politics only offers pain relief to the winner of a court or election battle. They fail at ensuring all sides can improve their levels of functioning. Indeed, a purely legal approach easily results in more suffered pain. Need-response first reacquaints us the point of pain, to alert us to remove threats. The first development program walks you through an exercise that can restore your ability to endure discomfort long enough to address its underlying needs. Instead of habitually avoiding your pain, you can be equipped to remove the causes of your pain. And enjoy more peace. Need-response then provides tools to help you turn from provoking more pain to creating an environment that reduces or removes pain. The second development program helps you replace harmful norms of reactively opposing others to engaging their inflexible needs . Instead of habitually opposing apparent sources of pain in each other, you can be equipped to mutually address each other’s needs to remove the sources of pain. Then enjoy more peace between each other. Need-response then equips you to speak truth to power. In a way that incentivizes the powerful to listen to you. The third development program invites those in positions of power to realize their leadership brand relies on how responsive they are to your exposed needs. Instead of remaining aloof under shield of impersonal law, you engage them to help them improve their impact by first positively impacting you. More of your pain, and their pain, will then automatically slide away into oblivion. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: I am outraged by the things I see on social media or online. I feel powerless to do anything about the problems around us. I want to contribute more to lowering the temperature of public discourse but unsure how. I wish I could process more of my pain to get to the source, but I don’t see how that’s possible. Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next