Search Results

Anankelogy establishes your every need as an objective fact Anankelogy recognizes your every need as objective fact ; as inflexible needs. You cannot change at will whatever you may need in the moment. You can only change how you respond to them. Need-response puts your inflexible needs ahead of flexible laws, ahead of our social norms. The reality of our needs evolved first. Our laws and norms then followed long after. Compared to your need for water, or for friendship or for solitude, social norms like laws  or political views are flexible . Sure, they can be next to impossible to change. And often don’t need to be changed. But since social norms and laws are not grounded in biology, they can  change .   Your needs cannot. They occur as inflexible phenomena, biologically, prior to your subjective awareness and choices. They only go away if you resolve   them . Not if trying to relieve the pain, or to suppress them to comply with some authority. Or because others regard them as subjective choices. Your need for water is objective. You objectively cannot function fully while thirsty, while your body lacks sufficient fluids. How you subjectively quench your thirst for water does not detract from its objective core. Your need for security is objective. You objectively cannot function fully while insecure, while unable to confidently step outside and not risk harm. How you act upon your need for security does not detract from its objective core. Your need for self-determination is objective. You objectively cannot function fully while others are imposing their will over your life’s course. How you act upon your need for self-determination does not detract from its objective core.   If your needs are completely subjective and a matter of choice, why do you choose to be thirsty? Or is your thirst an emotional response to your objective need for water?   How you get that water involves choices. But needing water is not a matter of choice or subjectivity. You objectively cannot function while your body’s fluid level collapses. If your needs are completely subjective and a matter of choice, why do you choose to be lonely? Or is your desire for friendship an emotional response to your objective need for social connection?   How you seek friendship or companionship involves choices. But requiring deeper social connections occurs outside of your choices or your subjectivity. You objectively cannot function well without the support of others at times. If your needs are completely subjective and a matter of choice, why do you choose to feel smothered? Or is your desire for solitude an emotional response to your objective need for personal space?   How you seek to get away from others involves choices. But requiring solitude occurs outside of your choices or subjectivity. You objectively cannot function well unless you’re free to do some things for yourself.   Only anankelogy makes this careful distinction. Only the service of need-response prioritizes your needs as objective phenomena. Because your needs persist as inflexible facts, over flexible norms. And over imposing authorities. Learn more about how this new professional service honors the inflexibility of your needs, by subscribing to this Need-Response podcast . You can learn more about the inflexibility of your needs at our website: AnankelogyFoundation.org . Use Google or any other search engine and enter A-N-A-N-K-E-L-O-G-Y then foundation.  We respect the inflexibility of your needs so you can be your full self. Hear this podcast episode one clip online at:

Are you disillusioned with lawyers? And with the legal process?   Consider the emerging alternative of need-response. It’s a new professional service in development to address needs the law cannot effectively address.   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. Pixabay image: Click image to see the original. Which do you prefer? Stick with established institutions and attempts to reform them, then hope for the best. OR Join efforts to co-create a fresh alternative for accountably responding to your needs. When prompting ChatGPT  for a “List of pain points of those disillusioned with lawyers,” it offered these 15 pain points. See how the new professional service of need-response answers each one. Click on the listed item to go there instantly. Return to this list by clicking on any header below in green text. 01.  High Costs of Legal Services 02.  Lack of Dedicated Concern 03.  Complex Language and Jargon 04.  Lack of Communication 05.  Aggressive Tactics Over Resolution 06.  Overpromising and Underdelivering 07.  Conflicts of Interest 08.  Focus on Profit Over Principle 09.  Pressure to Settle Unfavorably 10.  Inaccessible for Lower-Income Individuals 11.  Complexity and Delays in the Legal Process 12.  Emphasis on Technicalities 13.  Lack of Empathy 14.  Overreliance on Litigation 15.  Inconsistent Quality of Service   After each of these items below, see how need-response  can be far, far better. Click the right arrow to expand the text. This is where you can join the effort. You are welcomed to respond to this vision, add to it, critique it, and help shape this alternative. Join us in resolving more needs to improve our overall wellness, which the law itself can never do.   According to ChatGPT, “Here are some common pain points experienced by people who feel disillusioned with lawyers.”   01  High Costs of Legal Services “Many feel that legal services are prohibitively expensive, with hourly rates and retainers creating significant financial strain for individuals and small businesses.” Need-response starts free and always costs less than hiring a lawyer . Need-response shifts the costs to those in positions of power when they get involved. They are to bear most of the costs as they potentially benefit the most. They will likely find the mutual support of need-response far more preferential than more cost-imposing adversarial options. Wellness clients invest as little as the cost of a cup of coffee each week. They launch a crowdfunding campaign to build emotional and financial support. Professional need-responders  do not get fully paid  until the wellness client can demonstrate improved wellness outcomes. 02  Lack of Dedicated Concern “There's a perception that some lawyers are more focused on billing hours and earning fees than on genuinely helping their clients.” Need-response incentivizes need-responders to prioritize their client’s wellbeing. Need-response holds need-responders accountable to measurable wellness outcomes of all involved. While need-responders earn a flat rate  to cover their bills, they only earn their full pay  when clients can independently demonstrate improved outcomes. This incentivizes them to remain engaged with their clients. 03  Complex Language and Jargon “Legal language can be inaccessible and confusing, leaving clients feeling lost and unable to fully understand their own cases.” Need-response uses easy-to-understand language to better understand needs. Anankelogy includes a simplified version called accessible anankelogy . Need-response uses many of these easier to digest concepts and principles. A new practice introduces new terminology, but they’re kept relatable. Anankelogy Foundation.org  provides a glossary  so you can quickly look up these new terms. Moreover, the point of this fresh set of words serves not the law nor some academic standard but your specific needs. Need-response incentivizes need-responders to support clients fully understand their “case” or wellness campaign . 04  Lack of Communication “Frustration with lawyers who are unresponsive or fail to keep clients informed, leading to anxiety about case progress or outcomes.” Need-responders remain responsive and engaged with each client. Need-response incentivizes need-responders to remain engaged with their clients. They start out complementing other professionals serving the client. But can quickly become competitive if those professionals (like lawyers, activists, psychotherapists, psychiatrists, advocates) fail to be as responsive. From this proactive perspective, any unresponsive professional is no responder at all. Need-response holds all accountable to remaining responsive to each other’s affected inflexible needs.   05  Aggressive Tactics Over Resolution “Some feel that lawyers are overly combative, prioritizing “winning” at all costs rather than pursuing a fair or amicable resolution.” Need-response accomplishes far more with its mutual support paradigm. Need-response replaces the legalistic norm of adversarialism with the higher standard and rigorous discipline of mutual regard . Instead of trying to win at the other party’s expense, the process addresses the affected inflexible needs  on all sides. Sustainable solutions can only occur when no one has cause for pushback . No one truly “wins” until all sides are free to resolve their affected needs, and their wellness can be restored. 06  Overpromising and Underdelivering “A common pain point is the experience of lawyers making unrealistic promises about case outcomes to secure clients, only to fall short.” Need-response holds need-responders accountable to clients' improved outcomes. Need-response keeps it real. The service that need-responders provide remains transparent. Their aim is to coach the client’s team to develop their own solution to the client’s presenting problem or problems. They spur the support team to incentivize those more powerful to coordinate with their problem-solving efforts. They own the risks involved. They challenge the legitimacy of those in power who fail to be responsive to their good faith efforts. They aim to resolve the needs of all the cooperative. They avow to resolve their own needs with or without such cooperation. In other words, failure is not an option. 07  Conflicts of Interest “Concerns over lawyers representing multiple interests or clients in a way that could compromise the quality of representation for any one client.” Need-responders balance a case load they know can improve each client’s wellbeing. Need-responders incentivized primary interest is the bottom line of clients’ wellness outcomes. If they can successfully support a dozen clients to measurably improve their outcomes, then they are free to determine for themselves how many more they can schedule to serve. The more they can coach the service team to do more of the heavy lifting, like initiating contact with peripheral personnel shaping the outcome, then the need-responder both avoids risking burnout and shares in their successes. 08  Focus on Profit Over Principle “Many perceive that some lawyers may take cases primarily based on the potential financial gain, rather than based on the merits or justice of the case.” Need-response financially rewards need-responders who improve wellness. Need-responders earn greater financial gain and professional prestige the more they take on clients with a meritorious cause. Need-responders get rewarded by improving wellness and not merely billing clients for services rendered despite outcomes. Moreover, need-responders stretch beyond those immediately involved to include all those with some impact on the situation. As a not-for-profit service, need-responders are less likely to fall trap to the limits of capitalism. Their services are not merely between a payer and payee, but set to inspire investment in the client’s emerging improvement and positive impact upon others. Need-response naturally rewards those deeper benefits that money simply cannot buy. 09  Pressure to Settle Unfavorably “Clients may feel pressured to settle rather than pursue further litigation, even when they believe they deserve a better outcome.” Need-response incentivizes all to resolve needs and not compromise their wellness. Need-response moves beyond the win-lose paradigm of adversarial justice, or divisive politics. Improved wellness from resolved needs sets the standard. Need-responders do not get fully paid  until demonstrated improvement can be empirically measured. The closest thing to a compromise or settlement occurs when the client recognizes they’ve improved enough under the prevailing context. If those impacting their need resists resolution, then the client can move onto those more responsive to their affected needs. If none available, those who exclusively can either find a more need-resolving path or risk being removed from ever negatively impacting the client—or anyone—ever again. Failure is not an option. 10  Inaccessible for Lower-Income Individuals “The perception that legal help is reserved for those who can afford it, leaving low-income individuals with limited access to justice.” Need-response exists as a nonprofit with free and low-cost services anyone can afford. Need-response maintains itself as a nonprofit service. Anyone can start for free. A wellness campaign  starts as a free trial, to allow time for to test its viability. Initial prices of weekly sessions tend to be kept low, allowing time for the client to grow their support team. Each onboarded team member joins as either a follower for free, as a supporter for a few dollars per week, or as a patron for a few dollars more. Clients with a viable cause and no team members can petition what’s called a “pool” to get started to cover the costs. The more attractive the cause, the greater the opportunity to attract investment in their coordinated crowdfunding campaign. Money shall never become a barrier to resolving needs, improving wellness, and spreading love . 11  Complexity and Delays in the Legal Process “Frustration with the legal system’s slow pace, which lawyers can’t always avoid but may fail to clearly explain or manage for their clients.” Need-response alerts those in power that avoidable delays risk their legitimacy. Need-response either complements or competes with lawyers to resolve clients’ needs. Improved wellness serves as the bottom line. If need-responders can improve wellness faster than lawyers, then they can attract more clients than lawyers. If the legal system presents road blocks to improving wellness, then its legitimacy is to be challenged to make room for those who can create transformative change. The more attached a lawyer to the adversarial system, the more likely need-responders will compete with them. The more open any lawyer to need-response’s more engaging alternative, the more likely need-responders will coordinate with them and complement their efforts. Justice delayed is not only justice denied, those complicit in such delay risk losing any competive advantage. And need-responders may be happy to fill that gap as fresh opportunities to resolve more needs. 12  Emphasis on Technicalities “Some clients feel that lawyers often prioritize technical legal arguments over fair or ethical considerations, which can feel frustrating or unfair.” Need-response stays anchored in relatable principles that anyone can understand. Need-response transcends the baked-in limits of depersonalizing legal structures. 1. It replaces legalism's hyper-individuality tendency with holism. 2. It replaces legalism's hyperrational tendency with vulnerable honest relating. 3. It replaces legalism's overgeneralizing tendency with relevant specifics. 4. It replaces legalism's alienating avoidance tendency with engagement. 5. It replaces legalism's hostile adversarialism tendency with mutual regard . Each of these fresh concepts are kept easy for anyone to understand and apply. Instead of serving the complexities of law, need-responders serve your simple needs. The more your needs can freely and fully resolve, the easier you can respect the needs of others. Which is what the law exists to motivate you to do. 13  Lack of Empathy “A common complaint is that lawyers can come across as cold or detached, making clients feel that their personal struggles aren’t fully understood or valued.” Need-response puts your needs first. Need-response incentivizes professional need-responders to be emotionally invested in their client’s lives, in their client’s improved outcomes. Need-responders serve clients more like counselors. Instead of trying to get their clients to fit the demands of laws, they seek ways to fit laws to the demands of their clients’ inflexible needs . Need-response challenges the alienating impersonal demeanor of the legal professions. Unlike typical lawyers, need-responders champion the higher “ you shall love ” standard, to honor the needs of other as one’s own as the grounding principle for their professional legitimacy . 14  Overreliance on Litigation “Some feel that lawyers push for litigation rather than alternative methods like mediation, which could save time, money, and emotional stress.” Need-response uniquely replaces legal adversarialism with responsive mutuality. Need-response upends the adversarialism built into the judicial system and politics. Need-responders lead their clients to first affirm the inflexible needs  on all sides of a situation or conflict. Instead of immediately contending with those negatively impacting the client, need-response first builds and preserves rapport with them. Instead of provoking defensiveness and shortsighted self-preservation, this alternative process keeps all sides engaged with each other. Mutual regard over adversarialism. Win-win solutions over win-lose court or ballot battles. Improved outcomes rather than merely pain relief. Which costs far less and produces far less emotional stress. 15  Inconsistent Quality of Service “The variable quality of legal representation can make it difficult for clients to know if they’re receiving good counsel, leading to doubts about their lawyer’s competence.” Need-response sets a higher standard of accountably improved wellbeing. Need-response holds us all accountable to independently verifiable wellness improvement. Unlike the opacity of the legal process or the guarded privacy of psychotherapy, need-response remains transparent. Need-response serves as a fully supported bottom-up process to speak truth to power . And in ways that incentivize the powerful to listen to those impacted . The less responsive to client’s needs, the less these powerful persons or entities can earn legitimacy . The less they can brand themselves professionally. Need-response incentivizes involved lawyers to accountably respond to clients’ needs, or risk sliding into obsolescence. Does this speak to you? Could you benefit from what need-response potentially offers?   Thank you for your interest. Follow developments by listening to the Need-Response podcast each Wednesday, starting 30 April 2025. Let’s build this amazing service that can more effectively serve your overlooked needs. back-to-top

Join the Need-Responder Community and become a professional need-responder. Three options for you to choose from Whether you prefer to follow along as you observe others create this pioneering service, or you prefer to be in the middle to help establish its footing, we have an option for you. Follower Follow  developments reported beyond the standard podcast episodes, if you’re curious about this new service and need others to vouch for its trustworthiness before you dare apply it to your life. Supporter Support  the development of the need-response service if you’re eager to try this new service once it gets off the ground, and you’re willing to let others know if they should trust it or not. Contributor Contribute  to the early development of the need-response service. Especially if you’re a disillusioned professional with a passion to serve others, and willing to take risks by becoming one of the first professional need-responders . Is this for you? Do you have a 'persisting problem' or 'stubborn problem' you’re unable to solve on our own? Do you support someone struggling with an unsolvable, persisting problem they're facing? - economic insecurity from predatory loans - insurance claim denial - medical debt - political polarization - source captured journalism - student loan debt - wrongly convicted innocent If struggling with such a problem, then need-response  exists for you. Have you tried other professional services, but none seem to help you solve this problem? - adversarial judicial process - arbitration - combative political process - complaint submitted to an ethics board - government agency - hiring a lawyer or receiving legal help pro bono - local official - psychiatry - psychotherapy We are developing the new professional service of need-response  to fill the gap. It can address your persisting problem  in ways these other options never can. Need-response starts on the foundation of understanding each other's needs, on a scientific level . It can start by serving you. We invite you to help us co-create it. ​ Join our  Need-Responder Community  to shape this new service to fit your particular needs. Choose one of three options, that best suits your needs. Each option welcomes you into this supportive community. You share a persisting need  and receive our encouraging warmth. And each option starts free, at least for a week. Need-response development Every new technology and every new service must create enough value to attract new users. Especially at the beginning, before that tech or service gets fully developed. This also applies to developing the first batch of professional providers of that tech or service. The NRC  seeks to develop both the demand for, and the supply of, the first available need-responders. ​ That could include you! Need-response adoption FOLLOWER Follow developments of this service as a FOLLOWER, for free. Prepare yourself to follow others using this new revolutionary service.   Early majority? SUPPORTER Support its development as a SUPPORTER, for only $5 a month. Become one of the 1st clients to benefit from this new revolutionary service. Early adopter? CONTRIBUTOR Contribute to its development as a CONTRIBUTOR, for $25 a month. Become a qualified need-responder either as a side gig or as a new career.   Innovator? FOLLOWER? A ‘follower’ membership is right for you if: You don’t need to solve your problem right now; it’s a low priority for you. But you’re curious about how this new service could perform better than other options. You prefer to see how this untested alternative works for others. You could benefit from regular updates for how this service could eventually serve you. You’re open to get to know others discovering this new service. You could use some encouragement to boldly face life’s challenges. SUPPORTER? A ‘supporter’ membership is right for you if: You need to solve your problem soon; it’s an emerging priority for you. You’re ready to shape this new service to fit your particular needs and problems. You would gladly share with others how this new service works, or fails, for you. You would benefit from personally shaping how this service could eventually serve you. You’re ready to work with others to respond better to each other’s inflexible needs. You personally gain meaning by encouraging others to overcome their life’s challenges. CONTRIBUTOR? A ‘contributor’ membership is right for you if: You need to solve your problem already; it’s a top priority for you. You’re ready to learn how to become a qualified need-responder. You willingly take risks on something new but could be a game-changer. You have the time to take online eCourses uniquely qualifying to solve problems. You’re eager to take the lead to co-create this unprecedented professional service. You seek a meaningful career helping others solve their problems by resolving needs. We begin to test the service with these pricing options. They mirror the options for a crowdfunded wellness campaign.  Become a member of the Need-Responder Community Join a community welcoming you into an environment of loving support. No matter what plan you choose.

Welcome to need-response as an alternative to the limits of adversarial law . When the last line of hope offers little to no hope, where can the innocent turn? Executive Summary [TLDR] Many who are a wrongly convicted innocent, or whose loved one is a wrongly convicted innocent, appreciate the innocence movement. Many with viable claims of innocence are still getting passed over, and these are understandably more disillusioned with the innocence movement . Welcome to need-response and its exoneration services , as the next line of hope for the " unexonerated ".   Thank you for your dedication As a wrongly convicted innocent person, I am grateful for the innocence movement. I am thankful to you and to others for helping to keep hope alive.   However, my requests for help over time have been turned down at least four times. I was told at the time that they: 1.  Can only serve death row inmates. 2.  Can only serve lifers. 3.  Can only serve those serving long prison sentences. 4.  Cannot find a reasonable path in court to reverse conviction with untested DNA.   Consequently, I am an asexual trans person who remains stuck on the sex offender registry for life, for a crime that never occurred. Despite earning multiple degrees, I remain under-housed and underemployed. I am not alone in feeling disappointed and even discouraged by the lack of responsiveness from various innocence projects and conviction integrity units. Discouragement begets disillusionment . Which costs you legitimacy in the eyes of countless innocents in prison and beyond. Along with their devastated loved ones. You must realize how countless innocent persons in prison remain underserved by the legal process. Does innocence even matter? I place this distrust less on the people within the innocence movement dedicating their lives to right the wrongs, and not even necessarily on local prosecutors stalling on correcting these injustices, but squarely on the distorting effects of the adversarial process built into the judiciary.   In other words, wrongful convictions of the innocent stem mostly from a structural problem . The adversarial approach is most necessary for law enforcement to incapacitate a violent offender. Once disarmed and held in custody, the exclusive application of adversarialism fades.   When left in overdrive, it needlessly provokes all adjudicated parties into mutual defensiveness and diminished awareness of each other’s affected needs. Until those needs can resolve, problems persist. Instead of resolving our justice needs, and despite the best of intentions, an exclusively adversarial legal approach risks perpetuating injustice in the name of justice. Where justice costs much, injustice can run chea p .   Any injustice in name of justice is no justice at all.   This insight comes from anankelogy , the new social science for understanding our needs like never before. Anankelogy recognizes our laws flexibly exist  to serve our inflexible needs . Only by resolving our inflexible needs can we return to full functioning capacity and reliably respect laws for respecting each other’s needs. Need-response can help you to better serve the needs our laws exist to serve.   Need-response is a proposed new professional service to directly address, and eventually resolve, each other’s affected needs. The more our needs resolve, the less we suffer pain . The less pain suffered, the easier it is to sustain prosocial behavior. . Need-response raises the standard above myopic legalism and defensive-provoking adversarialism. It holds procedural justice empirically accountable to outcomes of substantive justice.   Need-response offers innocence claimants an attractive alternative to the opaque re-adjudication process  relied upon by trained lawyers. The wrongly convicted innocent can now prove their innocence without you.   First, they can download our case form  to identify factors correlating with exonerated cases. You can download your copy  for review. This exists as a grassroots project, to instill a level of accountability currently in the legal profession’s top-down systems. Second, if still dissatisfied with the failings of the adversarial process, they can pivot to our mutuality process . They can try our public exoneration process . They pursue both in parallel, to see which is the most responsive to their inflexible needs.   Lastly, they have the option to primarily pursue such a public exoneration process . They prioritize this mutual regard  alternative, and dare the adversarialists to keep up. If finally exonerated by a court of law, fine. But we can no longer wait: Justice delayed is justice denied. We must serve the inflexible needs of all, especially the vulnerable systemically overlooked by impersonal institutions. We must put their inflexible needs ahead of the flexible practices of such institutions, when they are found to misappropriate their authority to indulge themselves at the public’s expense.   For example, need-response assesses if any assertion of “conviction finality” accountably serves the public interest of securing closure for crime victims, or if it actually serves the institutions’ or prosecutor’s preference to evade dealing with, or correcting, its damaging errors. The same could be applied to legal fictions like “harmless error” divorced from measurably illicit results.   You are welcome to participate in this pioneering alternative. We already published an open letter to all judicial officials to transparently convey our good faith intent to properly resolve needs that laws ostensibly exist to serve. As we shift from adversarialism to mutual regard, we hold ourselvces to a higher standard. We stary by asking you what you may need from us. We seek to remain engaged. But will not allow a lack of engagement to slow us down to properly resolve needs .   We have a “with you or without you approach” that prioritizes inflexible needs over flexible laws. We put vulnerable people over unresponsive institutions. We prioritize wellness outcomes of all with intrinsic motivation over maintaining the social order with extrinsic motivators. Impacred wellness outcomes is our bottom line. We prioritize love over fear.   Learn more about these need-responsive “ exoneration services ” at the Anankelogy Foundation . Follow their development on our Need-Response podcast . Each Wednesday, hear how we apply this scientific understanding of needs to our underserved need for justice. And how you can play an active role in improving the lives of us all.   Respectfully.   Steph Turner Founder of anankelogy and founder of need-re sponse ADDENDA The content below sent in our open letter to all judicial officials may aptly apply to you. Need-response can complement law enforcement’s adversarialism, in ways not normally contemplated by ADR or arbitration options. It can illuminate the biases that adversarialism often impose. Moreover, it can potentially produce more just results by incentivizing those in a conflict to first exhaust all possible mutuality options.   We do not presume adjudicated individuals, either complainants or defendants, as oppositional. We first affirm their inflexible needs that cannot be changed. Then we address the improper ways they behaved to redress such needs.   We cast a broader net to explore both internal factors and external factors shaping their options. We stay clear of either extreme: victimhood (overemphasizing external factors) or hyper-responsibility (overemphasizing internal factors). We hold ourselves accountable to produce just outcomes, in ways rarely if ever seen in the judicial process.   No longer exclusive The high volume of unsolved crimes , along with underreported violence , countered by estimated high rates of wrongly convicted innocents ,  suggests you could use a fresh approach to serving our justice needs. One less tied to the imposing constraints of advers arialism , and less beholden to constructs of law not held accountable to empirically measurable outcomes. In other words, prioritizing substantive justice over procedural justice.   To serve this noble goal of resolving more justice needs, need-response asserts a radical claim:   Anyone in the adversarial judicial system has the   privilege and not the exclusive right to serve the justice needs of the people .     In the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Jefferson hints to this necessity for an alternative when a government slips into tyrannical tendencies, or worse.   "All experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."   In other words, creeping normalcy  coerces us to adjust to institutions creeping from their mission  to serve the people in a just democratic society. Without any other option, the people acclimate to the mounting pain of their unresolved justice needs.   As the sole institution available to the public to address their justice needs, the adversarial justice system receives little incentive to improve outcomes. True to the American adventure of competition, need-response now presents itself as the incentivizing market force to improve just outcomes.   Opening a new path to resolve persisting needs In contrast to Jefferson’s rhetoric, need-response does not seek to abolish the current forms of the judiciary, but instead to complement it, and where necessary to compete with it, to identify, address and resolve justice needs.   We invite you  to learn with us how to utilize need-response to better fulfill your mission to serve justice needs. You can partner with us, as we extend a warm welcome to support a client’s noble wellness goal . One client at a time. Status quo institution Need-response alternative Justice means procedural; process focused substantive; results focused Approach adversarial; win-lose approach mutuality; win-win approach Service serve flexible laws & powers serve inflexible needs Offer relieve pain of survivors remove pain by resolving needs Responsibility focus risk objectifying individuals psychosocial balance Legitimacy ascribed; coax public trust earned; earn public trust Aim maintain social order improve overall wellness Perspective myopic; reductive to what’s manageable holistic; attentive to all Manifest outcomes toxic legalism ; poor need orientations social love ; improved need orientations Or you can drag your feet, delay your response, resist our intent, and even oppose our efforts. All under color of law. But we must address inflexible justice needs, with you or without you. And let the people democratically decide which they prefer. But the reality of inflexible needs is never legitimately up for any vote or court opinion.   Let us help you resolve justice needs Resisting inflexible needs is never an option. Those who do under color of law become professionally and personally complicit  in the rising number of poor wellness outcomes, like major depression, severe anxiety, recurring addictions, and deaths of despair. Need-response offers such officials an off-ramp from such damaging objectification.   Instead of always processing a mounting pile of troubling cases, need-response can potentially reduce that load as it cultivates greater responsiveness to the inflexible needs spilling into violent incidents. Need-response aims to get to the source of our problems, which points to our persisting unresolved needs. You can either be a part of this fresh alternative, or see how it helps others improve their lives and their careers.   Any injustice in the name of justice We start with viable claims of innocence that can be independently verified. We investigate the biases of judicial officials, starting with prosecutors, who delay justice more for their own purposes than the public interest for a just society. We methodically explore limitations within the adversarial legal process, but not in an adversarial way. We invite the wrongly convicted with a viable innocence claim to correlate their case with those already exonerated. We calculate the degree of their likely innocence instead of imposing a black-and-white guilt or innocence category. In other words, we aim to improve identifying the wrongly convicted innocent with a more scientifically valid process.   In case their estimated innocence fails to provide a timely, just outcome, we offer them the opportunity to demonstrate their responsiveness to all involved in a conflict. We incentivize all to fulfill the purpose of law, which is prosocial behavior toward each other. That includes incentivizing questionable authorities to be equally prosocial. Inviting you to help shape this pioneering approach We are testing a radically fresh approach. We link you with a sample of those you impact, so you can improve your effectiveness in enabling them to resolve their justice needs. This provides you the opportunity to improve your legitimacy  to serve a wary public.   By offering you sponsorship opportunities, we help you nurture the public’s trust by helping you respond more effectively to their underserved justice needs. Much better than currently possible by applying the law alone.   Learn more… For a more informed decision, learn more at AnankelogyFoundation.org . Follow us on the Need-Response podcast  to keep informed how this new professional field of need-response is taking root and growing.   Let’s grow a better society together by holding each other accountably responsive to each other’s inflexible needs . Let’s incentivize each other to move past adversarial acrimony and impersonal alienation to make room for our untapped potential for more platonic love .   If we don’t, who will?   Respectfully,   The Anankelogy Foundation

You feel fine one day. And wake up sick the next day. Our health care language characterizes this as some kind of binary. Anankelogy recognizes how we gradually slip from full wellness into sickness. STOCK IMAGE: much like this control room, functionality covers a complex array of needs you experience Which do you think is more likely? You are either well or sick with little room in between. OR Wellness is a matter of degree between full wellness and full illness. Wellness as a matter of degree Illuminating "symfunctional strain" Definition and illustrative description Slipping into the “symfunction trap” Your fallback functioning Institutional relief Spotlighting culprits to rising dysfunction Most problems emerge beyond your personal control Pulled into less wellness Getting stuck sliding from wellness to illness Wellness as a matter of degree Anankelogy illuminates how every need exists as an objective fact . Wellness only occurs when all of your needs adequately resolve. The less your needs resolve, the less well you become as you slip further down into lower levels of functioning. Lowered functioning then prompts pain, to warn us of this declining wellness. Anankelogy recognizes how we call experience a functionality array where we go through phases of complete wellness to deadly pathology. Peakfunctionality   - prioritizing resolving needs; full wellness. Symfunctionality   - prioritizing easing needs; from wellness to illness. Dysfunctionality   - prioritizing relieving pain; full illness. Misfunctionality   - prioritizing survival; terminal illness. peakfunctionality symfunctionality dysfunctionality misfunctionality Conventional thinking presents a wellness/illness binary. Anankelogy suggests something exists in between. Think of complete wellness as peakfunctionality . And illness as slipping into dysfunctionality , and into misfunctionality for terminal diseases and disorders. In between exists what anankelogy labels as symfunction . Where you are neither fully well nor fully ill. Symfunction can be broken down into smaller steps that helps to explain this slide into illness, called symfunction capture . It includes three distinct stages. Symfunction creep. Threshold into unwellness. Symfunction strain . Emerging unwellness. Symfunction trap . Unwellness taking hold. Illuminating "symfunctional strain" Definition and illustrative descriptions Symfunctional strain refers to the ongoing emotional stress you naturally experience from each need not fully resolved. Each imperfectly resolved need prompts your body (specifically, your autonomic nervous system , or ANS ) to warn you of its particular threat against your ability to fully function. If enjoying a quick meal of processed foods leaves you nutritionally deficient, your body warns you that your hunger has not been fully satisfied. If sharing your emotional troubles with a trusted friend who then dismisses your complaint, your body warns you that your need for social support remains unfulfilled. If your job provides a steady income but less meaning to create appreciated value for others, your body warns there is still room for improvement to address your need earn a living creating something meaningful. Typically, you feel each warning of a partially eased need as a dull and manageable pain. If experiencing just a handful of such needs that remain partially resolved, you likely do not even notice this strain. With most other needs fully resolved, you can still function quite well with little if any distraction. You can focus sufficiently despite that emerging reminder to satisfy that hunger. Or that slightly disturbing cue to find someone who cares about your complaint. Or that gnawing but easily ignored feeling that you are not really being valued at work for all you’re worth. These mostly resolved needs let you focus on the positives and disregard such miniscule negatives. Slipping into the “ symfunction trap ” Often, however, a few partially resolved needs swells into a molehill of unresolved needs. A few mostly resolved needs slips into mostly unresolved needs, severely compromising your ability to function. These can build up into a mountain of warnings constantly reminding you of growing threats to your ability to function. Any dull pain you felt at the beginning can now overwhelm your attention. Your growing hunger pangs refuse to be ignored. Your increasing sense of being misunderstood crowds your attention. Your alarming dissatisfaction with your lousy job consumes your focus. These less resolved needs increasingly distract you, as they scream for your attention. They warn your ability to function is becoming intolerable. Your once-trivial problems now appear more urgent. You feeling increasingly trapped to prioritize these alarming needs. While not completely nourished, you lack sufficient energy to always prepare a healthy meal. While wondering if you’ll find anyone who’ll care, you adjust your expectations to avoid painful disappointment. While feeling stuck in your dead-end job, you doubt if you can find any job that’s better. You now feel trapped into this mediocre level of functioning. At least you can get by in this modern world of technological conveniences and predictability provided by enforced laws. At least you’re not alone in this situation. Your fallback functioning The “ sym ” prefix, means “with others”. Sym+function means “relying impersonally on others to adequately function”. The less you can fully resolve your own needs, the more you likely fall back on what others provide. And you tend to accept the imperfect terms for how they provide it. The less you can fully access water freely from digging your own well, for example, the more you impersonally rely on the public water systems or store-bought water. The less you can count on your friends to help get you through a crisis, the more you seek whatever support is available—even if of lower quality. The creeping normality of settling for whatever you can get eventually takes its toll. The less you can fully resolve needs on your own or with a few supportive others, the more you tend to rely upon impersonal norms to fill the gap. You now must expect others to respect your exposed needs by following established laws. You cannot directly know what’s in that store-bought bottle of water, but experience indicates the laws work to keep you safe from any toxins. You cannot directly know if who you call on that helpline will be adequately sympathetic, but experience teaches you they follow ethical standards enough to be worth the call. Our recent ancestors could provide much more for themselves. Their needs tended to be far less vulnerable to divisive social norms, or to those in positions of power, or to onerous social structures. You cannot draw clean water from a river as could your great-great-great-great grandparents. Unlike them, you have to apply for a government permit to dig a well. By contrast, you must obey far more comprehensive laws. Norms rule our lives like never before. We are “free” to obey more laws than ever before in human memory. We are “free” to believe we’re free, or risk being locked up with the largest incarceration population in recorded history. We are “free” to think we’re all okay while living at a time of unprecedented rates of addiction, severe anxiety, major depression, and suicide. The more we assume sickness only occurs within, the more we may overlook culprits to our recurring unwellness. Perhaps you follow the privileged norm of feeling outraged toward others with a different political view. Maybe you’re among those who believe our adversarial legal system works great, that it’s the best in the world. Perchance you accept the dominant narrative that personal problems stem mainly from distorted thinking and has little to do with encroaching limits on your options to stay well. If you’re conservative and think such symfunctional conformity is more of a problem on the political left, think again. Certain aspects of political generalizing can leave liberals and progressives more prone to symfunctional strain . But even contemporary libertarians fall trap to symfunctional norms. We all rely more on institutions to ease our public needs. Institutional relief Psychiatry, and almost all of Western medicine, posits wellness or illness squarely within the individual. Its disease model tends to overlook the full context of wellness in favor of hyper-individualism . If you're cooperating with others, then all should go well. Until it doesn't. Relying on law-based institutions, such as politics and the judiciary, does little to accountably identify and address need to produce wellness outcomes. These institutions easily pull you into what anankelogy identifies as toxic legalism . Trusting laws to ease your needs tends to pull you into unhealthy norms. But the more you conform to unhealthy norms, like opposing what others inflexibly need , the less you can fully resolve your own needs. Sure, you fit in enough to gain approval. But at what cost to your wellbeing? If you cannot fully fit in to win their affirmation, then there is supposedly something wrong with you. In a world filled with many socially privileged problems—like hyper-rationalism , outrage porn and hyper-individualism —fitting in can be painfully overrated. Indeed, much of the stigma around mental illness, as a medical construct, points to this overemphasis upon the individual unable to fully function. It's often easier to talk about a sick person than admit we live in a sick society hindering an individual's potential to stay well . Anankelogy starts with a more holistic approach. Instead of relying on the medical model or internal cognitive processes, which reveals a Western bias toward hyper-individualism that overlooks socioenvironmental factors, anankelogy balances both internal components of wellness with external components. Anankelogy recognizes that wellness is psychosocial . Spotlighting culprits to increasing unwellness Conventional thinking generally assumes our dysfunctions exist squarely within our individual selves. We must have made some wrong choices that keep us trapped in pain. If only we applied ourselves, started making better choices, and asserted the willpower to remain disciplined. Then we could finally escape our pain. Or so goes conventional thinking. Anankelogy debunks such a hyper-individualistic narrow view. For starters, anankelogy recognizes pain as your body warning you of some perceived threat to your ability to function . The greater the threat and more vital the area of the threatened function, the more intense the pain. Most of these threats are real and come from outside of the pained individual. Pain typically points to some problem from unresolved needs. Pain is not the problem as much as the threats to functioning that pain exists to warn us about . Most problems emerge beyond your personal control Anankelogy gives context to the variety of such pain from pressing problems. Anankelogy identifies four levels of human problems provoking your pain. Each of these point to some threat to your wellness. Personal problems . These often constrict you capacity to fully function until you make some personal alterations within your responsiveness. Interpersonal problems . These generally limit your capacity to function until you work out your differences and respond to each other's affected needs. Power problems . These tend to significantly restrict your ability to function, depending on the recourse available to you. Structural problems . These can severely restrict your ability to function with little if any resource. IMAGE: Good Will Hunting scene: Too much self-blame leaves problem-makers off the hook. For example, if you live an environment where junk food is easily available while quality meals are less accessible, you face a structural problem that could easily pull you into painful dysfunction. But the more you can reliably access primary resources like healthy foods , the better you can function. If you could grow all the food your body requires, than you could come closer to sustaining full wellness, full peakfunctionality . The social and political arrangements of modern society tends to make that increasingly impossible. Pulled into less wellness We all find ourselves vulnerably dependent upon economic forces beyond our personal control to supply us with the food we need. When not adequately available, or when we find it challenging to find the time and energy to prepare a decent meal, we often opt for quick processed foods. It's easy to argue that we should all prioritize eating healthily. But the more we face the complicating details of modern life, the easier we can admit how our food choices get readily manipulated by structural patterns beyond our control. Once I opt for processed foods, I find I have less energy to prepare a better meal. The more time I save from microwaving quick meals, the more I commit much of that time to fulfill my social obligations. Which leaves me less time to cook next time. My growing dependence on microwaveable food can be described as a coerced poor option dependence (or CoPOD for short). Social pressures may coerce me to occasionally choose the easiest option available. As my energy declines, that occasional choice turns routine. My rare bouts of indigestion start to become a daily norm. Getting stuck sliding from wellness to illness The more you struggle with pain from unmet needs, the more naturally drawn to pain relief. But then you tend to ignore the underlying need. Which prompts more pain. The more you neglect your pain-reported needs, the further you slip into less wellness. And eventually find yourself getting sick. Anankelogy identifies this pattern as symfunction capture . Whether from poor choices or coerced into accepting the only options available, you acclimate to fewer needs resolving. A few unmet needs expands to several. Neglecting your low priority needs (like satisfying your vocational goals) can slip into neglecting your more essential needs (like personal security). Anankelogy views what we call "illness" as significantly diminished functioning. Before you label yourself as "sick", your ability to function often undergoes a steady decline. You may not feel this decline as a path toward pathology. You may not even recognize the many components of wellness slipping out of your reach. Anankelogy recognizes this dynamic for you. And sheds light on what it truly means to be sick, and to be well again. Your responsiveness to these levels of your functionality Your turn. Consider one or more of these options to respond to this need-responsive content. Check out Engaging Forum to FOLLOW discussions on this post and others. JOIN us as a site member to interact others and create your forum comments. Explore similar content by clicking on the tags below. Find similar content under this functionality category. Share this content with others on social media. Share the link to share the love. Check out recent posts of interest to you. Add a rating below to let others know how much of a good read this was for you. Write a comment below to give others an independent perspective on this content. Recommend this on Facebook. Introduce anankelogy to your social media contacts. Lastly, support us in building this new love-nurturing alternative to our hate-enabling institutions. You can help us spread some love. back-to-top

The first listeners to our podcast will likely be those who actively seek the solution we offer. We will roll out the red carpet to woo them. THEIR PROBLEM WE SOLVE We put a name to what our ideal listeners suffer: toxic legalism . They cannot resolve their needs because of imposing norms. And this leaves them in pain. ​ ​ OUR SOLUTION We t hen invite our listeners to engage our solution: The need-response service. Which proactively counters the problem of toxic legalism by prioritizing inflexible needs over imposing norms. And that's just for starters. Together, we bring out our potential to love each other more. ​ ​ SHARED OPPORTUNITY This serve has yet to be development. Our ideal listeners will help us, and help all humanity, by co-creating this service together with us. The more our listeners suffer this problem of toxic legalism, the more we anticipate such listeners will become invested in its creation and adopt it when developed. ​​ INNOVATORS? We anticipate the first to invest their energies into bringing the need-response into fruition will be disillusioned lawyers and disillusioned psychotherapists who actively seek this kind of alternative.  We invite them to join the Need-Responder Community as Contributors . ​​ EARLY ADOPTORS? Next, we anticipate to generate interest among those disillusioned with lawyers and the legal process. And those disillusioned with psychotherapy . We invite them to join the Need-Responder Community  as Supporters . ​​ EARLY MAJORITY? This could lead to interest among those who hear about this alternative from these earlier listeners. And then decide to follow us more closely, to be ready to adopt this new service when it's finally ready. We invite them to join the Need-Responder Community  as Followers   NEED-RESPONDER COMMUNITY Our membership tiers follow the first three stages of the adoption curve. These are beyond subscribing to the podcast. Followers – early majority Listeners who require an alternative to law or psychotherapy. Oriented to the possibilities of need-response and a wellness campaign. Help popularize the service. ​ Followers are typically the first to support another’s wellness efforts, who wait and see it can be of help to their particular situation and needs; to orient them to this fresh approach. ​ Followers find this valuable enough to invest their opportunity costs to regularly follow along. ​ Supporters – early adopters Listeners who urgently need the alternative of need-response. Explore how to be among the first clients and team members of a wellness campaign. Provide testimonials vouching for the service’s potential. ​ Supporters are typically prospective clients after the service gains traction, who will be among the first to try the service as early adopters; they act as something of an ad hoc board, who oversee the service’s development with a vote on key issues. ​ Supporters find this valuable enough to invest $5 each month and some of their effort to see this grow legs and take off. ​ Contributors – innovators Listeners who are disillusioned lawyers and disillusioned psychotherapists. Learn to be the first trained professional need-responders. Work out the bugs to establish the service. ​ Contributors are typically among the first prospective clients, who test the process and help tweak it, who are open to trying something untested, who have the need for this service and can eventually provide this service to future clients, and many will be cultivated to become the first staff of the service, including the first professional need-responders.   We anticipate most will be disaffected lawyers and counselor attracted this to approach that satisfies much of what they find lacking in the practice of law and the practice of psychotherapy. ​ Contributors find this valuable enough to invest $25 each month and to invest their professional skills to help establish this service for everyone in need, starting with themselves.

We guide your improving wellness along 16 familiar steps in the hero’s journey. Publicizing your adventure this way could easily attract more public support. To get the most from this article, check out part one here . PART TWO CONTENTS Your "responsive narrative" steps BASE - Addressing personal problems - steps 1 to 4 TEAM - Addressing interpersonal problems - steps 5 to 8 GROW - Addressing power problems - steps 9 to 12 GOAL - Addesssing structural problems - steps 13 to 16 Putting this into practice Your "responsive narrative" steps Your responsive adventure closely follows the steps in what storytellers call the monomyth , or hero's journey . You as the hero follow the steps in the monomyth cycle as explained below. The entries below first cover the fictional hero's journey, and then applies it to your own wellness adventure as our advocacy campaign step. The fictional hero’s journey This section in each entry below introduces you to the story element identified by Joseph Campbell and others. It’s why we stay engrossed in such stories as Star Wars  and The Matrix . Our advocacy campaign step This section applies the monomyth to our journey together resolving needs. It’s why others will become and stay captivated by your responsive narrative . This portion has yet to be tested and could change over time. Click on the narrative step here to quickly go to its explanation below. Click on that step title below to instantly return to this menu bar.    Norm - Call - Hesitancy - Advocacy - Enter - Growth - Faceoff - Approach - Ordeal - Atone - Apotheosis - Reward - Return - Mastery - Empower - Resolve BASE: ADDRESSING PERSONAL PROBLEMS Step 1: Norm Ordinary world As the story starts, you see the hero in their ordinary world. Luke Skywalker is stuck working on a moisture farm for his uncle on Tatooine. Thomas Anderson is stuck living a double life as a hacker likely to lose his daytime job. Cisconventional realm You begin your responsive narrative  while feeling stuck under circumstances beyond your control. You align with conventional wisdom that you can only change yourself, so must put up with the terrible situation clouding your life. You adjust or acclimate to a life of unmet needs. You settle for a life of quiet desperation. Step 2: Call Call to adventure You see the hero receive some kind of challenge to go above and beyond the usual. The would-be hero is typically less enthusiastic. Their motivation may be too external at this point. Or too selfish to consider their impact on others. Luke is invited by Obi-Wan to join the rebellion by becoming a Jedi. Neo gets invited to follow the white rabbit, and later receives a call from Morpheus. Call to resolve overlooked needs You can’t take the complacency anymore. Something occurs in your responsive narrative  to disrupt business as usual. You get some kind of “call” to try to resolve your overlooked need or needs, like a “call to adventure”. You must take charge as it seems no one else will. You feel a call of duty, like you might be the only one who can get this done. At this moment, you feel sure of it. Step 3: Hesitancy Refusal of the call You see the hero have second thoughts about going through with this challenge. Luke insists he must go back to help his uncle. Neo questions himself while trying to escape out on a ledge. Hesitancy to resolve needs You realize answering the call could exact a price you may not be ready to make. Your initial readiness to confront powerholders gets tempered by the reality of your current limitations. Your  responsive narrative finds you vacillating between the extremes of avoidance and being adversarial to those in power. Your hesitancy to jump into such a win-lose battle prepares you for or win-win mutuality alternative. Step 4: Advocacy Meet the mentor The hero is shaken from complacency by a wise helper. Obi-Wan inspires Luke to explore his greater destiny as a Jedi. Morpheus inspires Neo to find out what the matrix actually is. Receive advocacy to resolve needs Here is where your continuing responsive narrative merges with ours. We guide you to enter a new world of possibilities. We advocate for your vision to resolve the needs you feel called to resolve. We help you break the cycles of extremes. We inspire you with a workable plan to speak your truth to power. TEAM: ADDRESSING INTERPERSONAL PROBLEMS Step 5: Enter Crossing the threshold Now the hero boldly steps into the special world. Luke leaves Tatooine with Obi-Wan to get to Alderaan. Neo chooses the red pill and then suddenly wakes up from the matrix. Enter the extraordinary transconventional realm Here is where your responsive narrative  shifts focus. We initiate you into this special need-resolving world with a simple test of endurance. You reorient yourself to endure discomforts to resolve needs. You let go of generalizations to engage nuance. You transcend temporal barriers to address all the relevant needs in your situation. You also start with your contact list of those who may take interest in your progressing responsive narrative  in real time. They subscribe to the service for free as “followers” who regularly receive news from you. Later, you will nominate the more engaging followers to be your supporters, who invest in your vision with money and volunteer roles. They become invested coproducers in your responsive narrative . In short, you build up a support team that can also benefit from this. Step 6: Growth Belly of the whale The hero fully leaves the familiar behind and steps deeper into the special world. The hero faces their first real challenge or challenges and often fails. Transformation begins now in earnest, to prepare for the road ahead. Luke starts learning the ways of the force with Obi-Wan. Neo accepts he is “the one” and begins training with Morpheus. Growth with new skills We step deeper into transconventionality to let go of trusted generalizations and to replace pain-relieving habits with norm-transcending need-resolving determination. You internalize that you can do this, to courageously speak your truth to power. Your support team tests your character to make sure you can. Together, you prepare yourself to boldly address the relevant needs on all sides. Step 7: Faceoff Road of trials, allies, and enemies The hero gets put to the test, sometimes repeatedly. Luke encounters Darth Vader, who kills Obi-Wan. Neo is relentlessly pursued by agent Smith. The less trustworthy in the team reveal themselves. Han Solo helps only for the money. Cypher betrays the team. A new ally emerges to inspire the hero to reach their goal. Princess Leia inspires Luke to take on the empire. The Oracle inspires Neo to realize his life purpose. Facing off with your team to improve yourself Your support team helps you practice speaking truth to power. You match a supporter to each AI, and have them role-play as that AI. They can play devil’s advocate, to ensure you are ready for the real thing. They can help you consider outcomes and objections you may have overlooked. They give you constructive feedback to your rough draft messages for contacting each powerholder. Most importantly in this step of your responsive narrative , you fully realize the ultimate enemy is not these people in positions of power but structural barriers that prevent you and them from fully resolving needs. Once internalized, your conciliatory approach becomes increasingly irresistible to these powerholders. You soon realize you’re finally ready to speak this deeper truth to power. Step 8: Approach Approach to the most innermost cave The hero draws closer to the edge of the impending ordeal. There’s little room for failure now, so the hero better be ready for the danger ahead. After the Death Star destroys Alderaan, Luke and the others enter this behemoth weapon of terror. The Oracle warns Neo that he or Morpheus will die from the choices he makes. Approach to speaking truth to power You draft your final message to send to each identified powerholder. If no one objects or finds room for improvement, you give these to the service to pass along for you. Before forwarding your messages, we “announce” to each powerholder to alert them that a change is afoot. The service contacts each powerholder with news of a revolutionary kind of leadership development support. You could say this softens up the target for your initial contact in the next step, so it does not land like some cold call. They can expect your initial call. In fact, this step is the “norm” in each powerholder’s forthcoming narrative of need-resolving change. Your “ordeal” is their “call to leadership”. GROW: ADDRESSING POWER PROBLEMS Step 9: Ordeal Ordeal, death, and rebirth The hero faces the most challenging circumstance so far. It typically challenges the hero’s assumptions. After helping to rescue Leia, Luke sees Obi-Wan killed by Darth Vader. Neo and the others get ambushed by agents in the matrix. Ordeal of speaking truth to power You finally make contact with powerholders impacting your needs. You assess their responsiveness to your expressed needs widely shared with others. You challenge them to improve their leadership qualities, ready to provide social proof of their responsiveness. Or testimony of any disappointing reactions or neglect. Once you contact powerholders, we go live with this responsive narrative . Your interactions with powerholders remain transparent. Together, we draft press releases to send to relevant media outlets and interested podcasters. In the extraordinary world of this transconventional realm, legitimate power impacting the needs of the vulnerable holds no legitimate secrets. clinging to opacity can cost powerholders their assumed legitimacy. Step 10: Atone Atonement with past The hero recognizes past mistakes in the ordinary world and now comes to terms with it. Luke learns to accept that Obi-Wan is really gone and finds his connection with the force growing stronger. Neo blames himself for Morpheus’ s capture and renters the matrix to rescue him. Incentiize powerholders to engage you The more you inspire powerholders to listen to those impacted, the deeper you connect with your untapped potential. You see how you resolve more needs more fully with the active support of powerful others. Or you find yourself in the uncomfortable but necessary position of sorting out bad leaders. You help society weed out those who stubbornly prevent us from resolving our needs. Along the way, you may inspire emerging leaders to proactively address structural problems. Step 11: Apotheosis Apotheosis or resurrection The hero goes through a life-or-death metamorphosis. The results bring the hero closer to the ultimate goal. Luke hears Obi-Wan encourage him to trust the force, which he does and destroys the Death Star. Neo almost dies at the hands of the agents, but with Trinity’s love and trust that he is the one, he revives and defeats the agents. Reborn as effective need-resolver Your past reliance on conventional generalizations to ease pain gets finally crushed. You learn to embrace the discomforts of resolving needs. You learn to transcend divisive generalizations and any conventional opposites to more fully resolve needs. You avow to each contacted powerholder that you will now pursue every legitimate means available to resolve the identified needs, with or without their support. Your example either incentivizes their support or gives them good reason to make room for more effective leaders. Step 12: Reward Reward, or ultimate boon The hero gains something special for all their efforts, to take back to the ordinary world. Luke realizes he has the force within him, to become the Jedi he is meant to be for the rebellion. Neo realizes that he is indeed “the one” as Morpheus claimed, so he can manipulate the matrix to bend to his will for the benefit of others. Add powerholders to social capital You gain a pioneering type of authority, and that is the anakelogically recognized authority of resolved needs. You realize all legitimate authority only exists to resolve needs, and any claim to power that fails to effectively resolve needs is merely coercive illegitimate force. You bestow or withhold legitimacy on powerholders with your newfound organic authority. You reach some satisfactory level of your campaign goal. You earn the right to advocate for each other’s impacted needs. You may soon be in high demand to help others similarly situated. GOAL: ADDRESSING STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS Step 13: Return Return to the ordinary world The hero must now find their way back to the ordinary world. They typically bestow onto others what they gained in the special or extraordinary world. Luke gives new energy to the rebellion as an emerging Jedi warrior. Neo gives hope to others that they break free from the matrix without threat from the agents. Return to cisconventional realm You step back into your conventional life. Your familiar friends may not adequately understand your transconventional journey. They may try to pull you back into comforting overgeneralizations, and settle for the quiet desperation of symfunctional or dysfunctional survival. But now you carry the responsibility of modeling a better way to those in higher positions of authority than you. Your consistency to proactively resolve needs, with endured short-term discomforts and messy nuance, could attract more powerholders. You stay true to your new energized self. Step 14: Mastery Mastery of two worlds The hero develops competencies in both the ordinary and extraordinary worlds. Luke continues as a humble Jedi warrior. Neo humbly accepts that he is “the one” as he comfortably moves between the matrix and the real world. Competency in both transcon and ciscon realms The more you integrate specifics in your decision-making, and embrace the sharp pain when first alerted to a triggered need, the easier to trust your resulting emotions. By cultivating new routines to more fully resolve needs, you can encounter the benefits of the transconventional realm after sliding back into the ordinary world of the cisconventional realm. This time, you enjoy a growing social circle of the powerful. Granted, you may alienate a few powerful folks who are unwilling to appreciate your vision. But the more you demonstrably resolve needs over settling for perpetuating pain, the more you brand yourself in ways that will protect you from the reactive. You become too much of a champion for both the vulnerable people and the compassionate powerful for haters to mess with. Step 15: Empower Return with the elixir The hero brings back what they gained to others in need. Luke brings back the power of the force for good. Neo brings back the powerful knowledge that the matrix can be transcended by deeper awareness of a greater reality. Goal supported by powerholders You show others this more effective way to address and resolve needs. You offer a more attractive alternative to adversarial justice, or to divisive politics or some other way you transcend the symfunctional status quo to inspire more of us to pursue need-resolving peakfunctionality. Step 16: Resolve Resolution or denouement The hero or others, sometimes the narrator, wraps up any loose ends in the story. Sometimes this closure utilizes humor. Just about every Star Trek original series episode closed with a humorous or lighthearted point. This can counter the heaviness in the preceding plot. Luke and the others are celebrated as smiling heroes at the end. Neo speaks his truth to the diminished power of the agents, offering a fresh vision for moving forward in life without their domineering presence. Sometimes this post-climatic closing plants seeds for a sequel. Need-resolving expands as a reachable standard You are now ready to move on with your life with a new way of seeing things. You help establish a higher standard to hold the powerful accountable to their objective impact on our needs. Or perhaps you have some unfinished business. You know more powerholders to reach with this need-resolving vision. Maybe you are just getting started on a longer journey of advocacy campaigns. You can repeat this cycle to reach more lives, and to more fully resolve needs. There is now plenty more love to go around. Putting this into practice

Need-response transports the client from the "ordinary world" to the "special" or extraordinary world inside the hero's journey. A wellness campaign publicizes the adventure of speaking truth to power . The client takes the role of "hero" in their own empowerment story. To go beyond the ordinary world . This liberation narrative follows the familiar pattern of the hero's journey , recognizable in many legendary stories and hit movies. PART ONE CONTENTS Your "responsive narrative" You as the HERO of your own improved wellness The hero enters the special world Cisconventional realm Transconventional realm The hero covers all problem levels 1. Personal problems 2. Interpersonal problems 3. Power problems 4. Structural problems Your "responsive narrative" Most of us find ourselves trapped in what can be called a " feel-reactive " mode. We likely don't realize how stuck we are in life-stifling norms of the "ordinary world". We're like fish in the ocean who remain oblivious to the increasing stagnancy of the water. Need-response can liberate you from this trap . It can lift you out from the smothering pressures of the "ordinary world". It can carry you into the "special world" where you develop your human potential to be much more " need-responsive ". Every wellness journey begins with a client suffering a problem. It's a situation mostly beyond their personal control. The problem points to power dynamics. The client has fewer options in the power relations affecting their problem. Need-response considers this client the " Reporting Impactee " or " RI " for short. They address all four levels of human problems in their journey to solve their stubborn problem. You as the HERO of your own improved wellness The hero of each responsive narrative  is the RI . Think of this as a David versus Goliath story. But the villain in your story is not the Goliath of Ascribed  or Acknowledged Impactors  but all the structural barriers in the way of resolving each other’s affected needs. The qualified AI s become a part of the RI ’s team that helps slay this impersonal dragon. “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world” that have drifted into symfunctionality  or worse. The hero enters the special world To slay that dragon, the hero must leave the familiarity of their ordinary world to step into an extraordinary world. To fully resolve overlooked needs, the hero leaves the familiarity of the cisconventional  realm to enter the more focused transconventional  realm. Cisconventional realm Accept popular generalizations while continuing to overlook relevant specifics. Settle for easing needs or merely relieving the pain of unmet needs while leaving the unresolved needs to cause more pain. Accept established norms as the way we should all do things. View life through a binary lens, that waters down complex moral issues into simple black-and-white terms. "Cisconventional" means you align with what is conventional. This points to Kohlberg's middle stage of moral development: Conventional. It features symfunctionality of pragmatically fitting into what is socially expected. Here we find the “normal world" or "ordinary world”. Transconventional realm Question widely accepted generalizations to address missed specifics. Seek to fully resolve the needs prompting each other’s pain, even if this means enduring some discomfort now. Insist that our enforced norms result in more needs resolving and raising our overall functioning. Embrace the nuance in life. Engage the ambiguities in moral issues. Transcend binary terms to connect with the unmet needs on all sides to an issue. "Transconventional" means you transcend what is conventional. This points to Kohlberg's middle stage of moral development: Post-conventional. It features peakfunctionality of fully resolving needs and reaching toward full human potential. Here we find the “special world" or "extraordinary world”. The hero covers all problem levels Along the way, powerful AI s who seemed like adversaries become allies. The hero leads a team that helps the willing AI to test and improve their leadership qualities. The team attests to the AI ’s progressing leadership credentials, after measurably demonstrating greater responsiveness to the RI’s cause of overlooked needs. Anankelogy recognizes four levels of human problems , or common challenges. The West’s emphasis on the individual can easily get us fixated on the first level of the individual, tempting us to overlook the many external factors contributing to our many stubborn problems. 1.    Personal problems. The only barrier to resolving some need is within the individual. Once the individual changes it, the problem goes away. Pain dissipates as function improves. If left in place, the individual typically continues to suffer in pain as function declines. EXAMPLE: You avoid asking for help in your time of need only out of fear of being rejected, but if you do not ask then you will never know if you could have received the needed assistance. Or while still afraid, you test the waters and ask someone for a little help. As they reach out to help you, your discomfort fades and you get back on your feet. 2.    Interpersonal problems. The barrier to resolve needs exists between two or more people of relatively equal social status. Once all sides change what they can, the problem can be solved. Pain goes away as function improves. Otherwise, all sides tend to remain in some level of pain as their ability function remains compromised. EXAMPLE: You get into an argument with your neighbor about how noisy they get late at night. They complain you leave your windows open so they partly blame you for being so sensitive to the noise. You get an air conditioner to keep your windows closed and they turn down their music after 9 PM. Each adjusted to the identified need, which helps to clear up the problem. 3.    Power problems. The barrier to resolve needs stems from someone in a position of power lacking sufficient responsiveness to an affected need, typically the needs of the less powerful. Once this powerholder recognizes the need and makes the necessary change or changes, the problem can be solved. Pain goes away as function improves. Otherwise, the pain persists for the less powerful while their ability to function remains limited. The full potential of the powerholder is also held back, compromising their legitimacy as a leader. EXAMPLE: Your supervisor at work keeps giving you tasks originally assigned to your coworker. You want to complain, but avoid risking retribution. Your supervisor then explains your coworker is recovering from an invisible injury, who apologizes for not having to shift their workload onto you. After saying you understand, your supervisor requests you receive a raise. The problem takes care of itself. 4.    Structural problems. The barrier to resolve needs exists in the social or cultural structures, beyond any individual’s personal control. Cultural norms or long-standing practices get in the way of fully resolving affected needs. Once the structural barrier gets transformed to be more responsive to the identified needs, the problem can be more easily solved. Pain can subside and allow personal and shared functioning to improve. Otherwise, society itself can remain held back to a lower level of functioning. Addressing such structural barriers typically calls for a sharp level of leadership, which can sort out weak leaders from the worthy ones. EXAMPLE: A police officer detains you after you wander through a protest that turned violent. You protest that you were not part of the protest, but the officer tells you that he is only doing his job. You are release about an hour later, with a warning to be more aware of the social situation around you. You feel annoyed but thankful things didn’t get any worse, as you are now free to go home. Part 2 takes you deeper into the hero's journey. See how the journey addresses each of these four problem levels. Dive deeper into each step along the way.

Anankelogy  points to an objective side to morality, based on the objective fact of your needs . What we do about our needs is subjective. But necessities to function occur independent of awareness, and therefore exist as objective phenomena. The more our actions results in resolving each other's needs, the more our actions can be quantitatively good. The more our actions detract from resolving needs, the more our actions can be quantitively bad. This republishes my Medium article titled Holding Moral Views Accountable to Measurable Outcomes . Summary of these six empirically measurable definitions of moral terms. Which would you prefer? Morality only exists as a culturally relative construct forged into politically agreed upon rules. OR Morality retains an objective basis anchored in the objective fact of our inflexible needs . The more we relegate moral issues as personal preference or as culturally relative, the more we blind ourselves from the root of our many personal and social problems . Anankelogy puts objectivity back into "right" and "wrong" by empirically measuring the predictable outcomes of resolving needs (good) or not resolving provoked needs (bad). DEFUNCTIONS or what's morally bad Look for how anankelogy and its application in need-response can empirically measure the predictable outcomes from these objectively based definitions of what is morally good. 1. Empirical sin (objectively sinful) 2. Empirical wickedness (objectively wicked) 3. Empirical evil (objectively evil) REFUNCTIONS of what's morally good Now look for how anankelogy and its application in need-response  can empirically measure the predictable outcomes from these objectively based definitions of what is morally bad . 5. Empirical repentance (objectively repentant) 6. Empirical righteousness (objectively righteous) 7. Empirical uprightness (objectively upright) Objective morality of factual needs If a need exists as an objective fact , independent of its subjective experience, then surely morality includes an objective dimension. While morality speaks to how we address each other’s needs, the results on our functioning can be empirically determined independent of any moral belief. Between our objective needs and our empirically measurable levels of functioning, we experience various defunctions that reduce functioning. And we experience various refunctions that raise functioning and restore wellness. We dance around these when talking about interests, motivations, incentives, goals, aims, desires, intent, privileges, rights, responsibilities, obligations, laws, norms, agreements, and so forth. These all exist for the sole purpose to address needs. Apart from needs, none of those would exist. Morality only exists to assess how responsive we are to each other’s needs. Apart from needs, no one cares about judging actions as right or wrong. Anankelogy now adds the discipline of empirically measuring the linking between our actions and our levels of wellness. To get there, let’s learn some new terms to give this fresh approach some teeth. The Batman villain the Joker illustrates the darker side of what many of us identify as evil. 1. Empirical sin (objectively sinful) MEASURABLY NOT RESOLVING A NEED FULLY Empirical sin identifies where you cannot resolve a need fully. You fall short. You miss the optimal mark. You consequently cannot function fully, in objectively measurable ways. Which limits what you can do for others, also in measurable ways. Likewise, when others cannot fully resolve their needs, their responsiveness to yours can be diminished. Such measurable imperfection occurs independent of emotion, or belief, or perception. For example, it’s objectively sinful to indulge in junk food that deprives your body of the full nutrition it requires. Perhaps it’s all you have to eat right now. Unlike conventional sin, empirical sin doesn’t necessarily refer to something you can personally change. Any market failure is an empirical sin . 2. Empirical wickedness (objectively wicked) MEASURABLY HINDERED FROM RESOLVING NEEDS Empirical wickedness identifies where someone or something measurably prevents you from fully or even partially resolving a need. You objectively cannot function, at least not fully, if kept in some way from accessing the essential means to resolve a need. Equally, you’re objectively wicked when hindering another from resolving their needs. Their ability to function objectively declines. It occurs independent of emotion, belief or perception. Your intent may be good. For example, you could sympathetically offer pain relief that hinders another from recognizing the need that pain tries to report. Standing by and doing nothing as they become dependent upon pain relief leaves you measurably complicit in their resulting decline. 3. Empirical evil (objectively evil) MEASURABLY BENEFITING FROM UNRESOLVED NEEDS Empirical evil identifies where you benefit from hindering the resolution of some need. Or benefiting from harm. The more you gain something from preventing resolution, or from harming others to serve your own interests, the less likely you recognize the problem. Your perspective easily overlooks the consequence of reduced functioning. Similarly, others may gain from preventing your needs from fully resolving. Motivated reasoning prompts them to deny any harm. Especially if they’re more socially powerful than you. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, doctors receiving financial incentives from pharmaceutical companies to prescribe symptom relievers are less likely to invest the time to identify your allergies causing that pain. It is objectively evil to benefit from another’s compromised level of wellness. "Good" means we can continue functioning more toward our full potential. 4. Empirical repentance (objectively repentant) MEASURABLY RESOLVING A NEED FULLY Empirical repentance counters empirical sin . It turns from a problem to a solution. It signifies an objectively improved level of functioning from resolving a need more fully. This could happen outside of anyone’s individual action, and yet remain independent of emotion, belief or perception. For example, you contact a social media “friend” and find common ground to establish a deeper or more satisfying relationship. You become objectively repentant of only investing yourself in surface relationships. Your ability to function objectively improves as a result. You can intentionally shift your actions toward others in ways that let them to more fully resolve their needs. Often after you're freed to do so. The more we recognize external components hindering resolution, the less this involves personal shame. 5. Empirical righteousness (objectively righteous) MEASURABLY RESOLVE NEEDS BY UNBLOCKING WELLNESS Empirical righteousness counters empirical wickedness . It identifies the unblocking of any hindrance to resolve a need. This also may occur beyond any individual action, while remaining independent of emotion, belief or perception. For example, you resolve your objective need for acceptance after a damaging piece of incorrect information gets automatically corrected by some computer program. Now you can do more than you could before. Your wellness objectively improves. You can be objectively righteousness when removing an obstacle to resolve another’s need. Like the local official using their discretion to remove prematurely applied constraints so the new business owner can start operations. 6. Empirical uprightness (objectively upright) MEASURABLY RESOLVE THE NEEDS OF OTHERS TO BENEFIT THEIR WELLNESS Empirical uprightness counters empirical evil . It occurs when shifting incentives that once discouraged wellness to now improving wellness. Removing any benefit that limits another’s needs opens up opportunity to incentivize more wellness. To illustrate, it would be objectively upright to resolve conflicts by replacing the norm that assumes mutual hostilities with a disciplined process of addressing each other’s affected needs. The measurable results could enhance just outcomes, independent of emotion, or belief, or perception. The more we could replace empirical evil with empirical uprightness , the better all of our lives could be. We are all more objectively upright when honoring the needs of others as we would have them honor our own needs. Such of power of love is supremely upright. Your responsiveness to objective morality Your turn. Consider one or more of these options to respond to this need-responsive content. Check our Engaging Forum to FOLLOW discussions on this post and others. JOIN us as a site member to interact others and create your forum comments. Explore similar content by clicking on the tags below. Find similar content under this applied anankelogy category. Share this content with others on social media. Share the link to share the love. Check out recent posts of interest to you. Add a rating to let others know how much of a good read this was for you. Write a comment to give others an independent perspective on this content. Recommend this on Facebook. Introduce anankelogy to your social media contacts. Lastly, support us in building this new love-nurturing alternative to our hate-enabling institutions. You can help us spread some love. back-to-top

The law can only do so much. Need-response takes us beyond minimal legal standards to respond directly to the needs our laws exist to serve. In other words, we ensure our flexible law s fit our inflexible needs. CONTENTS Why would you need law-fit? The problem of toxic legalism Asserting the greater authority of properly resolved needs Responding to needs over mindless obedience Who benefits? For whast need? Applying the praise sandwich format Use this simple ABC template Affirming paragraph Broaching paragraph Continuance paragraph Example from real life Do it yourself with peer support Law-Fit professional support Need-response offers this service of law-fit to introduce you to this new way to improve your wellbeing. When anyone cites some law or informal social norm, you have them state the need they expect that standard to address. Law-fit : linking a norm with a need to be served. Law-fit serves as an entry level for a much more thorough process of " citationization ". Citationization : process to link flexible norms to accountably serve inflexible needs. Why would you need law-fit ? After doing everything you can to obey the law, you can still find yourself in trouble. Perhaps some lawyer has convinced a court that you are in the wrong, despite the independent fact you are clearly in the right.   To start small, this service focuses first on the wrongly convicted innocent. Have you—or someone you love—been falsely accused and convicted of a crime? Perhaps they were not even there. Or no crime even occurred. Are you fully innocent and not yet exonerated? Are you—or your loved one—unable to get a lawyer to reverse the conviction in court? Are you disillusioned with the legal process ? Are you disillusioned with the innocence movement ?   As this gains ground helping the innocent overcome injustice, it can expand to serve others strangled by the adversarial legal process. For example, those denied insurance coverage for a legal technicality. Or those unduly denied their rights by any aspect of the adversarialist legal system.   Are you ready to give up on the adversarialism of the broken legal system? Are you open to a fresh alternative? Can you see yourself pioneering a new approach of mutual respect for each other’s needs?   Law-fit  radically changes gears. You shift from failing adversarialism to mutual engagement of each other’s needs. Yo directly address the needs our laws ostensibly exist to serve. You break free from mindless compliance to fallible laws to embrace engaging responsiveness to each other’s inflexible needs .   Click this image to engage this principle. Law-fit raises the standard. It holds authorities accountable to the inflexible needs they affect. It shifts from easily contorted legal arguments to the independent accountability of measurable wellness outcomes. You fit the purpose of law to serve each other's needs over passively serving the law itself. It prioritizes everyone's inflexible needs over flexible laws. Use it to overcome the privileged problem of toxic legalism . The problem of toxic legalism Reliance on laws to address your needs only takes you so far. Laws reek of imperfection. The imperfect institutions we trust to create and enforce them slip easily into costly errors.   Need-response identifies and counter five costly errors built into the human laws. Each starts with a benign purpose. Then slips into a painful problem we often overlook. 1. Slipping from personal accountability  to   hyper-individualism . Laws hold us personally accountable for our actions. But risks neglecting the socioenvironmental contexts challenging our needs. 2. Slipping from rational authority  to hyperrationality . Laws emerge from rational authority. But risks suppressing the rich emotional content of our experiences of needs under a shroud of disingenuous rationalizations. 3. Slipping from vagueness  to  overgeneralizing . Laws remain intentionally vague to apply to a wide array of circumstances. But risks privileging exaggerations that avoid dealing with the messy details of our complicated lives. 4. Slipping from impartiality  to  alienating avoidance . Laws remain impersonal to apply equally to everyone. But risks alienating us from each other to the point we no longer personally engage each other. 5. Slipping from punitive enforcement  to  hostile adversarialism . Laws compel compliance by opposing violators with harsh punishments. But risks objectifying you as a presumed offender to the point of opposing the needs you cannot change. The adversarial legal process presumes each side in a conflict must be opposed to the other. Need-response dares to test this assumption. This feature of adversarialism risks provoking mutual defensiveness. The more each side guards their side against the perceived or real threat from others, the less attention they typically give to the affected needs fueling the conflict. Instead of solving the problem, a rush to oppose others risks perpetuating the problem. The more you resist their inflexible needs, the more they must dig in their heels. You typically get more of the problem you ostensibly seek to solve. This adversarial approach generally denies our potential to be more understanding of one another. Law-fit  brings out this overlooked potential in a more proactive way. Asserting the greater authority of properly resolved needs No law is necessary wherever a need fully resolves on its own. For example, no law proves necessary to compel individuals to breathe properly. Or to compel you to drink enough water to function properly. Laws can restrict how you access your water. Laws forbid you from stealing water from your neighbor's well. But no law can forbid you from requiring water. Or from requiring friendship. Or from requiring solitude. No law can legitimately negate your need for security, or for self-determination. If they do, need-respose asserts the higher authroity of properly resolving needs. To properly  resolve your needs means you do not negatively impact the inflexible needs of others. The detached way the adversarial legal system operates tends to illegitimately negate many of our inflexible needs. Law-fit starts with the gacious assumption that such authorities mean well. It seeks to help authorities realign its actions with its founding purpose to respect needs. Over time, many institutions drift from their founding purpose. Law-fit can help authorities recognize their mission creep that undermines their legitimacy. Click this image to engage this principle. We rely on authorities to create and enforce laws. But we dangerously allow ourselves to become excessively dependent on laws to compel others to respect our needs. We allow ourselves to become more alienated. You never have to ask others what they specifically require of you when you convince yourself that following the rules should be enough. Do established rules always cover your exact needs? Law-fit challenges our blind faith in enforcement authorities to ensure the social order. As long as you are not the one objectified as a threat to the social order, it can be easy to hold enforcement authorities at a lower standard. Law-fit asserts the higher authority of properly resolved needs. The more we can resolve our needs, the better we can function. We can all aspire to step beyond the harm reduction standards of law to do something that actually improves each other's lives. We can love. Law-fit challenges the passivity of mindless obedience that undercuts our human potential to be more loving to each other. It reminds us to put each other's inflexible needs over the arbitrary demands of impersonal authorities. Responding to needs over mindless obedience Your needs can never fit the demands of laws. Laws must always fit the demands of your needs, and the needs of others. Click this image to engage this principle. Laws can only guide our actions to address one another's needs. No human law can ever change the needs themselves. Our actions are flexible and rightly fall under the domain of laws. However, our innate needs remain inflexible and therefore supersede all laws. Law-fit reprioritizes our inflexible needs over flexible laws. Law-fit can get us back to honoring the needs of others as we would have them honor our own. It encourages our potential to be more loving to each other. Click this image to engage this principle. Toxic legalism easily separates us from the purpose of law: to faithfully address each other's needs without compromising our own needs. We must resolve our own needs to function well enough to sufficiently respect the needs of others. Impersonal laws can drive a wedge between us, undermining our potential to be more loving toward each other . Law-fit can get us back to honoring the needs of others as we would have them honor our own. Law-fit melts normalized isolation to explore some key questions. Not to defy authority or law, but to get to the helpful purpose of applying some authority or law. Law-fit can help us fulfill the purpose of laws. For the interest of wellness, need-response uses law-fit to ask these two sets of basic questions: 1.    Who benefits  from the cited norm? And at what cost? 2.    What need  does it exist to serve? And what actual needs are being served?   Q1: Who benefits? Cui bono?   Who stands to gain from the establish norm, or from its current interpretation, or from its application and enforcement? How can we know when this benefit is achieved?   By extension, what cost does this norm impose? Who stands to lose from the norm’s enactment, interpretation or enforcement? To what end or to what purpose?   Is norm enforcement premature? What evidence of bad faith warrants this application of the norm?   Why resort to external pressures of norm enforcement? Have intrinsic motivations been first incentivized? Have all mutuality options first been exhausted?   Q2: For what need? Quid egestes ? Since every affected need exists as objective fact , what are the intended and actual wellness outcomes?   What specific need is to be served by the cited norm? Is it serving an inflexible need, or placating a flexible preference? How is that being empirically measured? Click this image to engage this principle. What are the actual needs driving the conflict? Can those impacted by the conflict become aware of these needs with a more conciliatory approach? Or is harsh enforcement the only way to compel a response to the needs the norm exists to serve? How is each affected person and entity able to function as a result of official action? Is anyone even gaging such impacts? How can we shift from alienating enforcement to mutually understand and address each other’s affected needs?   We communicate this good faith intent to resolve needs mutually using the effective format of the "praise sandwich". Applying the praise sandwich format Law-fit nurtures mutuality by utilizing the communication format popularly known as the "praise sandwich". Any bad news gets sandwiched between bookends of good news. More specifically, law-fit lays out three communication modes in these three lawyers. A . A cknowledge the cited norm, and affirm the needs the norm apparently addresses. Good news to them. B . B roach your affected needs. Likely bad news to them. C . C ontinue cultivating mutual rapport. More good news for them. Use this simple ABC template Law-fit applies this simple ABC format to make sure each side addresses the underlying needs in good faith. A. Affirming paragraph Acknowledge any cited norm. Affirm any needs the norm ostensibly addresses.   B. Broaching paragraph Identify how enforcement impacts your actual needs. Especially any of your neglected needs. Assert that your needs and their needs are inflexible, in contrast to any cited norm which remain flexible. Perhaps identify how prioritizing flexible (and fallible) laws over inflexible needs correlates with your poor wellness outcomes (i.g., anxiety, depression, addiction).   C. Continuance paragraph Express your intent to identify and resolve each other's affected needs. You want to earn their trust that you will continue to seek to mutually resolve needs properly, beyond legal minimal requirements. You express your aim to improve wellness outcomes for all, and could help them improve their legitimacy by supporting their resposnives to vulnerable needs like yours. You welcome a dialogue. Do you see how this follows the POSITIVE-NEGATIVE-POSITIVE format of the “praise sandwich”? Can you envision how this can to cultivate and sustain mutuality? Law-fit counters the destructive norms of adversarialism by exhausting all possible mutuality avenues. Only after all mutuality options fail do you assert your held adversarial options . Online public campaign exposing the unresponsiveness of this particular authority. Independent media campaign of you speaking truth to power in this proactive way. Complaining to any ethics boards to test the reliability of any resourse options. Spotlighting the recurring failures of the adversarial process to faithfully serve needs. Exposing any self-serving reactions that resist accountability to serve affected needs. Challenge funding streams lacking performance measures to accountably serve needs. Civil disobedience with attention of a wide array of supporters and the whole world. You incentivize those in positions of power that you both are not foes to each other, unless you both completely fail to support resolving each other’s affected needs with the power of love.   Example from real life I recently applied this format to resond to the State of Michigan. They sent me a letter threatending to garnish my wages for an unpaid tuition bill . But this occurred because of the unjust fallout of being wrongly convicted back in 1993 . Injustice spurs more injustice. Note how I sandwich my concerns between addressing their concerns. I nullify cause for them to get defensive. I negate adversarialism by prioritizing each other's affected needs.   Dear Collection Services Bureau:   My name is Steph Turner and I am acknowledging receipt of a State of Michigan Liability Information Statement. It indicates I owe the state $3,659.16 in overdue tuition, from attending Oakland University’s masters of counseling degree program a decade ago.   Thank you for drawing my attention to this problem of unpaid tuition. I support the State of Michigan to receive all due funding to maintain its educational system, like Oakland University.   I must contest any assertion that ascribes responsibility for this overdue tuition solely upon my actions. I assert my rights to counter this claim, to provide full context that this action ostensibly overlooks.   If I was offered an opportunity in the past to contest the claim, then I missed it. I also join the millions disappointed in the adversarial legal system to properly address such problems.   I am currently developing a viable alternative, called need-response , to counter adversarialism with a more engaging mutuality approach to such litigated problems. It can potentially lead to a better outcome than this ill-informed legal action. You are invited to take part.   I invite you to follow the upcoming podcast   to help us find a meaningful solution to the limits of the adversarial legal process to solve such a problem. More information is to follow.   Thank you, /S/   At the time of writing this, I have yet to hear back. I look forward to providing updates on the Need-Response podcast the letter mentions. Do it yourself with peer support If you have been wrongly convicted and no longer incarcerated, but cannot get a good job or housing, try this law-fit message template. After we refine this tool and gain traction with the authorities, we can branch out to apply to it the wrongly convicted innocenct who are still incarcerated. And eventually apply to others who endure the wrongs of the adversarial legal system. To get started, you can try this Word document template. Simply edit it to fit your needs. Let us know how it works for you. Or drop us a line if you have any questions. Help us shape this to best serve your particular situation and needs. Help us build this service to fit your particular need . Use this Law-Fit discussion for: Exploring how applicable this Law-Fit template is to your particular need. Offering suggestions for how to shape it to suit your particular situation. Sharing how effective or not so effective this is for you. Connecting with others trying this alternative to the adversarial legal process. Your helpful input is already appreciated. Let us help each other overcome the problematic limits of the adversarial legal process. I previously crafted an interactive tool for automatically calculating the viability of an innocence claim. It compares the details of the entrant's case with those cases already exonerated. Then produces a number that demonstrates the likely innocence of the claimant. You can download your own copy by clicking this button. The resulting Estimated Innocence Report offers a boost to the legal process. But it risks falling into the same trap of adversarialism. We are unlikely to fix a broken system with the same tools that broke it. You can supplement your law-fit message with our Responsive Innocence tool. It applies the same praise sandwich format. GOOD NEWS: Identifying and respecting the apparent needs of the complainant. BAD NEWS: Identifying your own affected needs. GOOD NEWS: Inviting mutual regard for each other's affected needs. Click this button to learn more, and to download your own copy.   Law-Fit professional support Law-fit operates on a relatively basic level. We kept it simple enough for any layperson to use on their own. If the contacted authority replies, and you're uncertain how to what to do next, we can take this to the deeper analytical level of citationization . You can receive personalized support by the law-fit creator with one-on-one online sessions. When you are ready, click the 'Book Now' button and find an available time slot that fits your schedule. We offer the first session free with the understanding you will show your appreciation with what you can afford. We will continue offering this support for free for a limited time. Once we gain traction with a viable service, we will likely start charging for this service up front. Keep in mind this is all brand new. We cannot promise anything but a fresh alternative to the disappointing adversarial legal process. If you are innocent and repeatedly ignored by the adversarial judical system, what do you have to lose? Let's create this alternatie to improve your life in ways the law can never do. Let's get back to the power of love. back-to-top

We know there are far more innocence claimants than innocence litigators to review their viable innocence claims. Are you or a loved one among them? 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 of those disillusioned with the innocence movement below.” It gave me the two sets pain points below, totaling 20.   Need-response exists to serve you Now let’s look at how need-response  better serves those underserved and disillusioned by our failing institutions. First... For anyone who doubts the need for an alternative to its adversarial approach Response 1 1.1  Misplaced Resources 1.2  Exclusion of Non-Innocent Defendants 1.3  Pressure to Prove Complete Innocence 1.4  Selective Advocacy 1.5  Influence on Public Perception 1.6  Neglect of Broader Criminal Justice Reforms 1.7  Limited Systemic Change 1.8  Moral Judgments Response 2 2.01  Narrow Focus on Actual Innocence 2.02 Lack of Attention to Broader Criminal Justice Reform 2.03  Resource Allocation and Prioritization 2.04  Dependency on New Evidence or DNA Testing 2.05  Challenges in Securing Post-Release Support 2.06  Difficulty Addressing Systemic Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct 2.07  Media-Driven Perception and Sensationalism 2.08  Psychological Toll on Advocates and Supporters 2.09  Emphasis on "Perfect Victims" for Exoneration 2.10  Slow Pace of Legal Reform 2.11  Internal Movement Challenges and Fragmentation 2.12  Entrenched Social Structures Need-response to the rescue 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. For anyone who doubts the need for an alternative to its adversarial approach Much of the public remains naive about the true workings of the adversarial judicial process. Many accept we have the best judicial system in the world, yet cannot explain how this great system results in the highest incarceration rate in the world . As long as they feel safe in their person and property, they often misattribute their sense of security to law enforcement that rarely if ever disrupts their lives. They poorly assume that law enforcement only targets those who are clearly guilty of wrongdoing. This betrays their fundamental attribution error , which overemphasizes personal agency and underappreciates environmental factors shaping human behavior. They conveniently ignore the actual negative impacts from the imperfect human institutions they blindly trust. The inexperienced public may blindly believe that law enforcement would never target them, because they know they are not guilty of any crime. They likely believe the line between guilt and innocence is clearly black and white. You either did the crime or you didn't. But those better acquainted with the dark side of the criminal justice system realize the difference between legal guilt and legal acquittal can be quite blurred. Law enforcement works under many social and political pressures to quickly apprehend suspects. They are typically granted leeway to stop violence by almost almost any means necessary. Errors abound. Lives get upended. The innocent get arrested. Once arrested, the accused are typically assumed to be guilty. And often found guilty erroneously. "We know without doubt that the vast majority of innocent defendants who are [wrongly] convicted of crimes are never identified and cleared." - Samuel Gross, editor of the  National Registry of Exonerations  as reported in 2015 in the  Washington Post . When no corroborating evidence is necessary for a conviction , as in my case, this trusted system can destroy many innocent lives, along with the family and communities that depend upon them. These too often include vulnerable families and communities, such as people of color and LGBTQ+ members, who can be easy prey for the biases built into the adversarial process. Other types of damaging errors abound. Official misconduct. Junk science. Witness misidentifiation. Jailhouse snitch. Coerced confession. Insufficient defense. Tunnel vision of investigators. Confirmation bias. And much more, all privileged by taking a hardened adversarialist approach. Once convicted, it can be next to impossible to reverse a miscarriage of justice. The prosecutor holds all the cards, and often resists reviewing and reversing wrongful convictions like when trying to maintain their high conviction rate. Innocence litigators work within this system. Their job and career depend upon them playing along with this adversarial paradigm. They too can fall prey to its built-in biases. The volume of viable claims of innocence overwhelms the meager resources of innocence projects to review them all. Many local innocence projects favor cases they can envision being easier to reverse the faulty conviction in court. If your viable claim of innocence is not one of these low hanging fruit, you could languish in prison or worse for decades. Each innocence project screens claims according to a tight set of criteria. For example, some only review cases where DNA evidence can be accessed. Not every innocence claim involves DNA. When it does, the sample may be lost or too degrated for testing. In short, thousands of innocent people languish in prison, and after prison remain trapped without all of their rights, simply because we as a society put all of our eggs into the adersarialist basket. It's objectively wrong to oppose inflexible needs. If operating under the same paradigm as the adversarial legal system, then the wrongly convicted innocent could accuse all those complicitly supporting such adversarialism. They could indict all toxic adversarialists for ripping society apart—both with the judiciary and with polarizing politics . Having tasted the poison of toxic legalism , the wrongly convicted innocent understandably yearn for something better. Need-response presents itself as a viable alternative. It replaces failing adversarialism with love-nurturing mutuality. Instead of objectifying individuals according to impersonal laws, it prioritizes the needs for which laws arguably exist to serve . Instead of offering relief from the pain of violence, it aims to remove cause for pain by resolving needs on all sides to any conflict. It heralds the higher standard of love , of honoring the needs of others as one's own. Here are just some of the reasons to be discouraged, disenchanted and disillusioned with the Innocence Project , and with the wider innocence movement . "Here are some common pain points felt by those disillusioned with the innocence movement” according to ChatGPT. Then check how need-response can be the answer. Response 1 “Those disillusioned with the innocence movement often cite [these] pain points.”   1.1  Misplaced Resources “Critics argue that the focus on innocence over broader criminal justice reform draws resources and attention away from addressing systemic issues, such as wrongful convictions due to procedural errors, poor representation, or prosecutorial misconduct—even when defendants aren't strictly ‘innocent’." Need-response takes a more holistic view of our underserved justice and other needs. Need-response addresses the structural glitches that not only repeatedly produce wrongful convictions, but fails to address the inflexible needs  of all adjudicated persons. It challenges the legitimacy of the adversarial criminal judicial system that objectifies and depersonalizes human beings ostensibly for public order but also for its own institutional gain. The wrongly convicted innocent sits at the tip of the iceberg of what anankelogy identifies as toxic legalism , which rarely helps crime victims to resolve their needs. Instead of serving the law as proxy for societal needs, need-response prioritizes those inflexible needs, recognizing how social order can then nobly fall naturally into place and result in improved wellness for all. 1.2  Exclusion of Non-Innocent Defendants “There is frustration that the movement largely focuses on individuals who are completely exonerated, leaving those who may have received unfair trials or disproportionately harsh sentences without advocacy.” Need-response challenges public misconceptions about prisoners. Need-response cites research estimating rates of wrongful convictions , which suggests that current exonerations barely skim the surface of this overlooked tragedy. While lauding support for exonerees, need-response sheds light on the scope of the problem if all wrongly convicted souls were suddenly released without adequate supports. Need-response debunks the popular misconception that all prisoners claim innocence—they don’t. When grieving the loss of their freedom when first arrested, they naturally go through shock and denial. Their defense lawyer will encourage them to deny the harshest charges to save space for a plea deal. But once they land in prison, most admit to the harm they regrettably caused. Only about 15% assert actual innocence , close to some estimated rates of wrongful conviction. Most prisoners rightly complain how their harsh sentences tend to serve the questionable interests of those invested in penal structures more than the societal interests of justice. 1.3  Pressure to Prove Complete Innocence “Requiring defendants to meet a high bar of absolute innocence can overlook those with complex cases where errors in their trials might have impacted verdicts, but conclusive exoneration is challenging to prove.” Need-response questions the innocence of any legal process impeding justice needs. Need-response provides wrongful conviction claimants  with a form they can fill out that correlates their case to those already exonerated. Instead of relying on the judicial guilt-innocence binary, the form automatically estimates a degree of viability for the claimant’s case. If not effectively utilized by the legal process, need-response publicizes the case outside of the adversarial guilt-innocence binary process. Then challenges the legitimacy of any judicial official—including innocence denying prosecutors—who resists this empirically based path toward just outcomes. This can include suspension of funding revenue, as it becomes unethical for officials to coerce taxpayers to fund their empirically evil  actions. 1.4  Selective Advocacy “Some believe that the innocence movement’s ‘narrative-driven’ approach—prioritizing cases that appeal to public sympathy or that make for compelling media—creates inequality, as it often overlooks cases that may not be as sensational.” Need-response seeks to craft a compelling narrative for each unexonerated innocent. Need-response seeks to utilize artificial intelligence to craft a compelling narrative for each viable case of wrongful conviction. And potentially for any adjudicated case with questionable outcomes. Need-response prioritizes inflexible needs  over arbitrary laws. Including the neglected justice needs of all overlooked by an impersonal legal system or media system improperly incentivized to champion some cases but not all. In the process, need-response creates a narrative for how judicial officials can better serve overlooked justice needs to earn legitimacy , or risk losing the legitimacy to be trusted to serve their communities. 1.5  Influence on Public Perception “By focusing on wrongful convictions only in clear cases of innocence, the movement may reinforce the misconception that errors in the system are rare or that most people in prison are guilty, despite evidence of broader flaws.” Need-response illuminates the problems baked into the adversarial judicial approach. Need-response invites innocence claimants to fill out a copy of the Estimated Innocence Form and post the results online. Eventually, need-response may provide space to spotlight these viable innocence cases . Publicizing these cases outside of lawyer-led entities can move us beyond the popular bias that ignores the commonality of wrongful convictions. These cases can reinforce available research  estimating up to hundreds of thousands of wrongful convictions. Illuminating this problem can help the public appreciate how the overlooked magnitude of this problem of toxic legalism  equally threatens them. Set in the larger populous frame challenging elite narratives, need-response challenges responsible leaders to help transform social structures currently enabling repeated errors. They earn greater legitimacy the more they can inspire greater personal and collective responsiveness to everyone’s over-adjudicated needs. 1.6  Neglect of Broader Criminal Justice Reforms “Some argue that a narrow focus on innocence overshadows issues like mass incarceration, racial disparities, and prison reform, which impact a broader group of defendants who may not be innocent but face deeply unjust circumstances.” Need-response includes the needs of all negatively impacted by failed adversarialism. Need-response addresses the structural glitches that not only repeatedly produce wrongful convictions, but fails to address the inflexible needs  of all adjudicated persons. It challenges the legitimacy of the adversarial criminal judicial system that objectifies and depersonalizes human beings, ostensibly for public order but also for its own institutional gain. The wrongly convicted innocent sits at the tip of the iceberg of what anankelogy  identifies as toxic legalism , which rarely helps crime victims to resolve their needs. Focusing on inflexible needs unpacks the problems fueling mass incarceration, racial disparities, and other contributors to poor justice outcomes of both defendants and accusers. Instead of serving the law as a trusted proxy for societal needs, need-response prioritizes those inflexible needs. It recognizes how social order can then fall naturally into place and result in improved wellness for all. 1.7  Limited Systemic Change “There is a perception that the innocence movement often pursues individual exonerations without pushing as strongly for systemic policy changes, which limits its long-term impact on preventing future wrongful convictions.” Need-response puts individual cases in context of systemic problems to fix. Need-response holds public judicial officials accountable to just outcomes. It sets a standard higher than law: improved wellness outcomes  of all. Convicting violent individuals is not enough; address the internal and external contributors  to violence. Punishment is insufficient; support all to resolve their unmet needs to nullify cause for desperate acts of violence. Along the way, need-response supports transformative changes  like innocence commissions  and any other systemic adjustment to get to the core of problems that legal systems of adversarial justice and divisive politics are not effectively equipped to address. Until the rates of wrongful convictions measurably declines from independent observation, the personal and professional legitimacy of each judicial official shall steadily decline. 1.8  Moral Judgments “The emphasis on ‘innocent’ defendants can imply a moral hierarchy, placing the value of innocence above principles like fair treatment, just trials, or proportional sentencing, which may alienate those who advocate for these broader principles.” Need-response asserts the objective morality  of inflexible needs over flexible laws. Need-response heralds the higher standard of properly resolving everyone’s inflexible needs . Exonerating the innocent is not the end but rather the first step in resolving deeper problems embedded in the legalistic criminal judicial system. Wrongly convicted myself , I quickly recognized how my innocence couldn’t alienate me from fellow prisoners with questionable cases of their own. For example, the guy serving a life sentence for a murder committed by another he barely knew, who was granted a lighter sentence for serving as a witness against him. Need-response applies a higher standard .  The more resistant to this higher standard of measurable morality , the more such judicial officials paint themselves into a corner as just another set of self-righteous self-serving offenders. It is now easier for the accused to admit their human errors than for police and prosecutors to admit theirs. How many are wrongly convicted in the US? Click to explore the estimated prevalence of wrongful convictions. Response 2 “The innocence movement, aimed at exonerating wrongly convicted individuals, has had major successes in reversing wrongful convictions and reforming aspects of the justice system. However, some supporters and former advocates have expressed disillusionment with the movement, citing various pain points. Here are some of the primary issues and frustrations often mentioned.”   2.01  Narrow Focus on Actual Innocence “Some feel the innocence movement focuses too narrowly on cases where individuals are clearly innocent, often neglecting cases with legal or procedural errors that don't definitively establish innocence but may still merit exoneration.” Need-response addresses all inflexible needs impacted by failed adversarialism. Need-response covers all power relations within and outside the adversarial judicial process. It challenges the ingrained shortcomings of its legalistic approach, which often neglects the needs that laws exist to serve. And it puts all on equal footing for impactful actions that objectively damages other’s lives. Instead of narrowly focusing on the social construct of “crime”, all acts of violence are addressed—especially those privileged by law. Including the violence of prosecutors abusing the state’s exclusive claim to violence. Those seeking exoneration but denied for technical reasons can point to the damaging violence of the process failing to serve the empirically measurable interests of justice. Which need-response links to resolving needs without hindering others from resolving theirs. After addressing legal exonerations, need-response addresses excessively harsh sentences and other unjust outcomes of an impersonal legal process failing to resolve the public’s justice needs. The more the legal process hinders resolving justice needs of anyone, the more need-response challenges its legitimacy and presents a viable alternative. Failure to pursue in good faith a just alternative could spell the end of the legalistic adversarial justice approach as we now know it. 2.02 Lack of Attention to Broader Criminal Justice Reform “Critics argue that the movement sometimes misses the bigger picture, focusing on individual cases rather than addressing systemic issues such as police misconduct, prosecutorial overreach, racial bias, or sentencing disparities.” Need-response addresses both the big picture and the many details shaping it. Need-response prioritizes psychosocial wellness , which integrates internal and external impacts on wellbeing. It links individual changes with systemic societal changes. Rather than seeking legal reforms that risk perpetuating the familiar problematic legalism , need-response gets to the core of the needs that laws exist to serve . It incentivizes us to shift from relying upon legal structures to mutually engage each other’s affected needs. In other words, a marriage between the big picture and the minutia shaping that scene. The more effectively we resolve each other’s needs, systemic problems  can naturally take care of themselves. 2.03  Resource Allocation and Prioritization “Since resources are limited, only certain cases are taken on, often the ones most likely to succeed in court. This leaves many who might have strong claims of innocence without any help, which some advocates feel is unfair and limits the movement's reach.” Need-response automatically calculates the viability of all claims of innocence. Need-response aims to publicize all cases of injustice adjudicated in the name of justice. Along the way, it may expose the adversarial approach as a systemic failure. This starts with all innocence claimants posting a summary of their case to our platform . Claimants fill out a form that automatically calculates the viability of their innocence by comparing their case to those already exonerated. It generates a number pointing to the viability of the innocence claim. The innocence movement can use such data to attract resources to process far more cases. Claimants then defy stereotypes by identifying their respect for the needs of any accuser, and even show empathy for errant law enforcement. The public can then realize how easier it is for the falsely accused to admit to their imperfections than for law enforcement institutions and lawyers to admit to theirs. If the slow-motion legal process cannot keep pace with the need for just outcomes, need-response may step in to challenge their legitimacy as the only provider for just outcomes. 2.04  Dependency on New Evidence or DNA Testing “Many wrongful convictions don’t involve DNA evidence, yet DNA has become a primary tool in innocence cases. Critics argue that this emphasis marginalizes cases where DNA isn't available or relevant, making it harder to address other types of wrongful convictions.” Need-response examines all wrongful convictions along with incentives to deny them. Need-response addresses all cases of manifest injustice in the name of justice. While appreciating how exculpatory DNA evidence initiated the innocence movement, need-response takes this shift to scientific accountability to a much greater level. It exposes the adversarial legal system’s many self-serving biases that the scientific method exists to check. Instead of going down the rabbit hole of what best serves institutions of law, need-response process cases to accountably resolve all justice needs. Rather than rely upon a handful of investigators to review a handful of low-hanging-fruit cases to possibly find something to reverse a conviction in some impersonal court of law, need-response challenges the judiciary’s legitimacy to stonewall any case with an estimated score of likely innocence. Need-response checks all violence. Those who personally and professionally benefit from the massive violence of unprocessed wrongful convictions risk being exposed as far worse than hated criminals. Criminals hurt a few people; these institutionalists who repeatedly fail to deliver just outcomes hurt all of society, much the way terrorists do. 2.05  Challenges in Securing Post-Release Support “After exoneration, many individuals struggle with reintegration, dealing with trauma, finding employment, and housing, often with limited support from the innocence organizations. The lack of post-release assistance leaves many exonerated individuals in difficult situations, especially without access to reparations.” Need-response unpacks the legally privileged barriers to serve underserved needs. Need-response addresses all needs affected by the impersonal legal process. Need-responders can support growing efforts to better serve exonerees. But also address the overlooked needs of wrongly convicted innocents released from custody and prevented from fair housing and meaningful employment due to an unexonerated wrongful conviction. They too require integration, processing trauma, securing employment and housing, and more. And they’re denied any prospect for compensation. Need-response illuminates the full scale of not only this problem, but every social and personal problem provoked by toxic legalism . By directly serving the needs laws exist to serve, but legal institutions routinely fail to deliver, need-response aims to improve the wellness of all involved. And challenged the legitimacy of any person or institution failing to keep pace with such positive outcomes. 2.06  Difficulty Addressing Systemic Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct “Some feel that the movement doesn't do enough to hold law enforcement or prosecutors accountable for misconduct, as organizations may avoid directly antagonizing these powerful institutions to maintain cooperation for future cases.” Need-response incentivizes adversarial law enforcement to improve quality. Need-response sits outside the adversarial legal process. Need-responders generally lack the implicit conflict of interest stifling innocence lawyers. Need-response incentivizes law enforcement officials and prosecutors to shift from an adversarial relation to a mutual relation. We affirm each other’s inflexible needs . We affirm the recognizable needs of both accused and accusers. We hold all accountable to measurable wellness improvements. With this higher standard of mutual regard , need-response can address the mission creep of judicial institutions that pulls it away from prioritizing justice needs to prioritize serving itself. The more need-response can produce wellness improvements by enabling more needs to resolve, the less the public can be manipulated to trust that our legal system is doing all that it can. It can do better, and it must. Or we may have to hold all revenue sources accountable to the poor outcomes that they passively fund. We can all work together to nurture our institutions to be more accountably responsive to our many inflexible needs. 2.07  Media-Driven Perception and Sensationalism “High-profile innocence cases often drive public perception, but they sometimes don’t reflect the average wrongful conviction case. Critics say this sensationalized approach may create an overly optimistic view of the process, misleading the public on how common wrongful convictions are and how hard they are to overturn.” Need-response exposes the magnitude of the problem of wrongful convictions. Need-response aims to publicize on our platform all viable innocence claims. Anyone can download the Estimated Innocence Form , fill it out and upload it for this purpose. There could be tens of thousands of these unexonerated with compelling innocence claims. Each profile could provide a picture of the claimant, a one-line summary of their compelling claim, along with some key highlights and other helpful info. Most importantly, each profile would feature the viability score from their “ Estimated Innocence Report ” from the uploaded form. Anyone agreeing to the site’s Terms of Use can view these profiles in more detail. Most cases likely include the many roadblocks toward judicial review, including the reluctance of under-resourced innocence projects declining to provide legal help. Each case could be summarized in an AI-generated video short. Media outlets could use these to inform the public of the massive scope of this underreported problem. Or risk getting accused of being complicitly silent about it. 2.08  Psychological Toll on Advocates and Supporters “Those who work on innocence cases often experience secondary trauma from exposure to the details of wrongful convictions and the trauma of exonerated individuals. This emotional burden can lead to burnout, disillusionment, and feelings of helplessness, especially when facing slow progress and systemic resistance.” Need-response spreads the effort to a support team independent of adversarialism. Need-response operates as a mutual support network. Cases get reviewed collectively instead of individually, providing mutual support for processing any traumatizing details. Not only for those processing such cases, but also for the claimants having to revisit such details. This process mitigates emotional hazards by offering an alternative to the very system at the source of the harm. Instead of bending the knee to the court’s failed adversarial approach, need-response authorizes the higher standard of addressing all the affected needs for which authority exists to serve. Any viable case of innocence not successfully litigated impeaches the legitimacy of the sluggish adversarial judicial process. The more innocence activists feel frustrated by systemic resistance, the more drawn to go above and beyond this toxic legalism  to identify and resolve overlooked justice needs. By any legitimate means necessary. 2.09  Emphasis on "Perfect Victims" for Exoneration “Some feel there is a bias towards clients who fit a specific narrative or image that is easier to ‘sell’ to courts, the media, and the public, which can leave out individuals with complicated pasts or cases that are less straightforward.” Need-response shifts the narrative to expose how the legal system threatens us all. Need-response shifts the emphasis from individual cases to the sheer volume of cases. While some individual cases may grab an audience easier than others, the mass number of overlooked cases serves as a clarion call in itself. Including cases of relatable human drama. For example, a case where a desperate act led to calling the police, arresting someone accused of stealing something not stolen, ignoring conciliatory options, coercing a false confession resulting in a wrongful conviction, satisfying the conviction count of a local prosecutor, and innocent young children no longer seeing their father except for the occasional prison visit and who no longer trust such biased authorities. Need-response identifies distorting biases built into the adversarial process of not only the judiciary but also of politics and media. Conflict sells, attracts views, get clicks, but rarely leads to solving conflicts. Need-response identifies and addresses the unmet needs resulting in each conflict. The old paradigm for entertaining battles features interpersonal struggles. Need-response offers a new engaging paradigm that pits our unresolved needs against the impersonal social systems that trap us in despairing pain. This new paradigm could offer competitive advantage to media outlets struggling to stay relevant to the public’s needs. 2.10  Slow Pace of Legal Reform “Despite high-profile exonerations, legal reforms to prevent wrongful convictions are often slow and uneven across jurisdictions, leading to frustration among advocates who see the same types of errors and injustices occurring repeatedly.” Need-response competes with the legal process to improve wellness outcomes. Need-response challenges the adversarial politics on par with adversarial justice: to shift from trying to win at another’s expense to trying to forge a win-win solution. To segue from trying to ease own pain to enable all sides to resolve needs, to remove cause for pain. To replace coping with poor consequences with improvement of each other’s wellness. Such a higher standard requires more discipline than adversarial systems. We delay gratifying victories in order to resolve needs. The higher standard conditions professional legitimacy , along with public funding revenue, to improve wellness outcomes by resolving more justice needs. Need-response holds authorities accountable to just outcomes by daring to put our tax liabilities into an escrow account, and releasing it automatically upon an independent demonstration of good faith response to such needs. To put it bluntly, we must not fund evil that stubbornly blocks the good. Improved wellness from resolved needs remains the bottom line. We echo the sentiment ingrained in the U.S. Declaration of Independence: to improve wellness outcomes by resolving underserved justice needs, we pledge our lives. 2.11  Internal Movement Challenges and Fragmentation “As the movement grows, critics say it can feel fragmented, with competing organizations, differing philosophies, and struggles over funding or recognition, which can detract from the unified mission of justice and fairness.” Need-response inspires community by prioritizing each other’s needs over laws. Need-response counters the divisiveness now rampant in modern society. Need-responders  learn to build bridges and develop coalitions to serve underserved needs. As a profession replacing adversarialism with mutual regard , it incentivizes cooperation over competition. With its unique revenue generating model , it is less vulnerably dependent on foundations or other public funding sources. Need-responders earn recognition, and added pay, by measurably improving the wellness level of clients. Moreover, the bottom line of improved wellness outcomes of all has a way or anchoring each other to the same cause, to the same unified pursuit. This alone has a strange way of checking mission creep, to keep all focused on delivering outcomes that prioritizes underserved justice needs. 2.12  Entrenched Social Structures “These pain points often stem from the deep complexities of addressing wrongful convictions within the legal system, but they also reflect the broader challenges inherent in any reform movement working to shift entrenched structures.” Need-response aims to transform social structures to be more responsive to us all. Need-response offers a refreshing alternative to the built-in traps of adversarial justice. Rather than prioritizing laws, need-response prioritizes the needs that laws exist to serve. That includes the need to exonerate every wrongly convicted innocent person with or without the help of the law. While no one sits above the law, no law sits above the needs it exists to serve . And anyone or any entity trying to put laws or authority above inflexible needs  expose themselves as a dangerous threat far worse than the average criminal. These “ legalists ” provoke plenty of disillusionment with the legal process, including the innocence movement. Need-response recognizes this as a structural problem  fueled by all those too close to the problems to realize the damage they cause. Need-response identifies and redresses each of these common pain points to outperform the judicial system in serving our underserved justice needs. It incentivizes emerging leaders to change not merely individuals or laws but to transform constraining social norms with the power of love . How many are wrongly convicted each year? Click to explore the estimated incidence in the US. Need-response to the rescue 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. 1) Estimated Innocence 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. Synopsis 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. Highlights 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 Tagline            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. 2) Responsive Innocence 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. 1. Empathize with what the complainant actually needed at the time "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."   2. Identify your own affected needs from the incident. "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."   3. How would you address complainant’s apparent needs if you had the chance? "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." back-to-top

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. 1  Inequity in Access to Justice 2  Overemphasis on Winning 3   Punitive Rather Than Rehabilitative Approach 4   Bias and Discrimination 5  Slow and Costly Process 6   Plea Bargaining Pressure 7   Prosecutorial Discretion 8   Reliance on Harsh Sentencing 9  Questionable Evidence Standards 10  Revolving Door and Recidivism Law-Fit alternative 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. Need-response serves those disillusioned with the adversarial justice system “Here are some common pain points felt by those disillusioned with the adversarial justice system.” And how need-response can be the answer. 1  Inequity in Access to Justice “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. Need-response counters the cost of accessing legal assistance by offering its initial services for free. After a two-week trial period, the client invests what they can afford. They put a little of their own skin in the game to inspire others to invest in their improving wellness and to reach their noble goal. Costs are spread out in a crowdfunded campaign. Contributing to the costs is more of an investment with shareable benefits for all. The campaign incentivizes more resourceful wealthier others to invest even more. This all follows a key principle: no one should have to pay to solve a problem created by others . 2  Overemphasis on Winning “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. Need-response holds accountable the power and discretion of the prosecutor . Despite the Supreme Court asserting in 1936 that the prosecutor’s duty is to ensure justice is done, and not merely to win a case , the current culture of the adversarial system continues to incentivize winning convictions over creating measurable just outcomes. Need-response shifts to incentivize resolving justice needs, largely by debunking the assumption that all sides in a conflict are vehemently opposed to each other. Only after exhausting all attempts to mutually address the inflexible needs  on all sides of a conflict do we revert to hostile options, not before. Need-response shows how there is no such thing as winning against inflexible needs. Resisting what the accused or accuser inflexibly needs does not extinguish moral conflict but enflames it . The more a prosecutor “wins” against a defendant’s or complaint’s inflexible needs, the more those needs persist, sometimes violently. Where necessary to ensure the twofold aim that “guilt shall not escape nor innocence suffer”, need-response conditions public funding to serve public needs. This holds all funding streams accountable, to cease enabling the empirical evil  of wrongful convictions. The public shall not be coerced to pay to undermine its own interests of justice or measurably compromise public safety. Instead of blindly funding prosecutors who let violators persist by targeting the wrong person, need-response holds the whole judicial system accountable. Not only to create just outcomes, but to improve the wellness of us all. 3  Punitive Rather Than Rehabilitative Approach “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. Need-response prioritizes the role of need. Not only the inflexible needs  of the punished, and how callous hindrance of their inflexible needs risk recidivism, but also the affected needs of the jailers. Their relative privilege lets them ease their needs more than the incarcerated. If the jailer’s job security benefits from recidivism, need-response challenges the legitimacy of that adversarial culture. Then proactively addresses the underappreciated causes of violence , which always involves the role of unmet need. Just about everyone kept from resolving their inflexible needs can be driven to a point where they resort to desperate acts of violence for prompt relief. Need-response illuminates the hidden conflict of interest where jailers gain job security the more they impede rehabilitation or restorative outcomes. Need-response checks the carceral system’s many self-serving damaging norms: hyper-individualism; hyperrationality; avoidant generalizing; punitive adversarialism —all ineffective at stemming the problem of violence. Need-response recognizes how wellness is psychosocial  and not merely psychological. To restore wellness in society, need-response seeks to rehabilitate the offending jailers along with the incarcerated offenders who viscerally know but often cannot freely admit how vulnerable we all are to external factors shaping wellness. 4  Bias and Discrimination “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. Need-response rips off the lid to expose the many sins of the legal system and its enablers. Its adversarial approach too easily incentivizes many biases, especially confirmation bias  and tunnel visi on . The further someone’s identity from a law enforcer’s presumption of the “good guy”, the more easily targeted as a likely “bad guy”. Veterans recruited as officers tend to objectify citizens as good or bad, sometimes with lethal consequences when feeling threatened. Need-response unpacks the dynamics of each other’s affected needs, and can inform better rules of engagement to minimize or avoid any costly mistakes. Need-response can complement or compete with judicial officials to accountably pursue the interests of justice. Without any competition, law enforcement tends to see itself as a hammer pounding us objectified nails. The lower our social status with meager resources, the easier to pound. Unlike need-response, legal professionals remain unaccountable to their actual impacts on the needs that laws exist to serve. And rarely alerted to the damaging impacts from their ideological bent. Only need-response accountably resolves more needs to reduce cause of violence, and improve the social order. Not top down but bottom up. The bottom line of need-response is improved functioning by resolving more of our inflexible needs . 5  Slow and Costly Process “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. Need-response challenges the slow pace of legal proceedings. Along with any exorbitant costs impeding the rights of those less well-off. Not only is justice delayed justice denied, barriers to flexible affordability become barriers to resolving inflexible needs . Need-response sets a timeline for achieving milestones. Failure to achieve a goal within the afforded window of opportunity risks diminishing legitimacy. When competing with the legal process and achieving milestone goals quicker than that adversarial approach, need-response earns greater legitimacy . For example, when a need-responder using a conciliatory approach can incentivize a perpetrator to admit their wrongdoing quicker than a defense-provoking legalist, need-response earns greater legitimacy or more trustworthiness. Need-response starts free, offering help without any expensive retainer or court fees. Costs get distributed more widely among those investing in just outcomes for all. Lower initial expenses and quicker effective results of need-response can prompt legal professionals to improve their quality, decrease their response times, and decrease their entry costs. Justice shall be accessible to all. 6  Plea Bargaining Pressure “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. Need-response upends reliance of the guilt-innocence binary. Inflexible needs  of individuals take precedence over institutional needs like this convenience category. Need-response does not vacillate between these extremes; no one is ever solely guilty on their own and no one is completely innocent of harmful wrongdoing—least of all prosecutors guilty of wrongly convicting the innocent. Need-response identifies and addresses specific needs affected by a situation without resorting to these defense-provoking adversarial categories. Further, it challenges law enforcement to recognize the many distortions of just outcomes from their imposing hostile processes. Need-response measures just outcomes by how safe a community actually is from not only individual acts of violence but also from coercive state violence. That can include such pervasive threats as innocence deniers , trial penalty benefactors, conviction finality  apologists, and blind faith in the carceral system . Under need-response, the standard prosecutors apply to the accused gets equally applied to them on an individual level. On a social impact level, need-response raises the justice bar from conviction rates to highly functional communities. Then tests the friction from those prosecutors losing ground as need-responsive succeeds where they personally and systemically fail. 7  Prosecutorial Discretion “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. Need-response prioritizes your inflexible justice needs over the flexible social influence of prosecutors. Need-response recognizes how the prosecutor does not exact literal “power” unless they enable resolving your needs. Power isn’t really power unless it resolves needs ; otherwise it’s just coercive force. You cannot choose to not have your justice needs, while the prosecutor can choose to charge or not. Need-response incentivizes all law enforcement and judicial personnel to honor your inflexible needs  over their flexible institutional practices. Both the affected needs of accusers and those of the accused. The less you can resolve your justice needs, the more pain you suffer. Which can compel you to act desperately for relief, even spilling over into illegal acts of violence. The more law enforcement gains from trapping you into the pain of your unmet needs, the more this implicit conflict of interest undermines the interests of justice for which prosecutors exist to serve. The less you can resolve your affected needs due to their official actions or inactions, the less legitimate their influence over you and your fate. Holding greater “power” comes with greater responsibility and accountability. Need-response can hold prosecutors accountable to justice outcomes simply by gaging the wellness level of a population. 8  Reliance on Harsh Sentencing “A perception that sentencing is often disproportionately harsh, especially for non-violent crimes.” Need-response offers a more responsive alternative to ineffective incapacitation. Need-response challenges the legitimacy of the adversarial legal approach, in at least five ways. First, it’s over-emphasis on personal responsibility neglecting social responsibilities to damaged individuals. Second, its self-serving rationalizing when inflicting pain in ways not established as resolving any accuser’s affected justice needs. Third, its reliance on generalities that neglect relevant specifics. Fourth, its alienating avoidance of uncomfortable details that sidesteps potential to mutually engage each side’s affected justice needs. And fifth, its rush to antagonistically oppose the accused that provokes defensive behavior it can then use to paint the accused as inherently bad. Improper sentencing tends to mirror all five of these elements. Reacting to individual violence with state violence tends to backfire, which rewards state violence with revenue. Punitive sentencing feeds itself with more bodies to fill prison beds, as it often hinders such bodies from fully resolving their needs. Harsher sentences typically produce revenue for the system, immediately and in the long-term by instigating recidivism. By contrast, need-response nurtures safer communities by incentivizing each other to identify and address each other’s needs in a climate of mutuality. Everyone wins. 9  Questionable Evidence Standards “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. Need-response investigates what criminal investigators gain from relying upon faulty crime solving methods. When tasked to comfort a crime victim, they may be motivated to trust even debunked pseudoscience like burn patterns or bit marks. If an apparent eyewitness supports the investigator’s assumptions, the emotional charge to offer relief to the victim can understandably lead down the slippery path of confirmation bias. If finding some way to coerce the suspect to admit to more than they actually did, the investigator may have little motive for checking the accuracy. Or for self-awareness how they pressured the suspect to confess to a crime that never even occurred. For each questionable investigative tool, need-response inquires what the investigator personally gains or risk losing from its use. Then inquires how its use affects the independent interest of security and justice. It does this all from an amicable perspective, outside of the bias-inducing bubble of the adversarial process. But can potentially become far more adversarial when resisted. When it comes to answering the age-old question ‘who watches the watchers’, we do. Need-response holds all accountable to resolve justice and other needs to ensure wellness, with minimal to no costs imposed upon others. No one—not even the adversarial justice system—is above the greatest law of love , of properly resolving each other’s needs as one’s own, to improve overall wellness. 10  Revolving Door and Recidivism “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 starts with inflexible needs . The less resolve, the more pain your inflexible needs provoke within you, to compel you to act for their relief. The more painful, anyone can be tempted to seek relief by force. Or impose so much self-restraint that they risk mental health issues like anxiety and depression. Criminal violence often occurs after an eruption of failed self-restraint, as the painfully unmet need compels desperate action for relief. This sets the abuse cycle  in motion, until those needs can finally be addressed and adequately resolved. Any adversarial approach risks perpetuating this cycle of abuse. Need-response takes a far more disciplined approach. Instead of relying on the socially constructed label of “crime” which biases attention to less isolated wrongdoers, it looks at all impactful violence. Need-response unpacks the motivated reasoning  of state violence apologists, who blames all recidivism exclusively on individual offenders. The more dependent upon a carceral culture  of objectified offenders, then the more dismissive of imperfect rehabilitation efforts by falsely claiming that “nothing works” . Need-response challenges such ideological bias, which selfishly overemphasizes personal responsibility of disliked others devoid of social responsibilities toward them. Especially toward outgroup members with limited opportunities and more encounters with law enforcement. Need-response recognizes how wellness is psychosocial . And sits ready to incentivize our institutions to respond equally to our internal and external needs, as a basis for earning legitimacy . There can be no justice without it. LAW-FIT alternative 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. 1) Estimated Innocence 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. Synopsis 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. Highlights 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 Tagline            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. 2) Responsive Innocence 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. 1. Empathize with what the complainant actually needed at the time "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."   2. Identify your own affected needs from the incident. "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."   3. How would you address complainant’s apparent needs if you had the chance? "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." back-to-top