Any discussion around politics that doesn't first address our different priority of inflexible needs quickly runs into errors. The more we address our specific needs, the less we rely on the generalizing of politics. The most important distinction in politics is not between left and right nor between populists and elites, but between overgeneralizing and addressing specific needs. Let's get to the specific needs politics exist to serve. Let's unpack politics, like you've never seen it unpacked before . Which do you think is more likely? You formulate your political views based on reasoning through the options on each side. OR You gravitate toward those views that best express your priority of inflexible needs. In other words, can you really be persuaded to change your political views? Or do your political views point to something deeper, which cannot be simply changed at will? If the latter, do we needlessly provoke each other's defensiveness by trying to change what we cannot readily change? Do we miss our full human potential to solve politicized problems when we fail to support each other to fully resolve needs we cannot change? If we can respect the inflexible needs behind our political differences, and only question what each other does to publicly address such needs, perhaps we can find more room to love one another. We can then honor the needs of others as we would have them honor own own, even while we experience different political perspectives. Ready to turn hostile politics into opportunities to give and receive some love? Good! Then let’s spread some love . CONTENTS Your political beliefs Your political differences Politics defined Your needs takes sides Your political orientation Deep & wide False balance or false dichotomy? Your politicized needs Hold your ground No conversion Issue by issue Spread the love Let's unpack politics, like you've never seen it unpacked before . Let’s appreciate why it can be so difficult for you to politically agree with others. Or for others to agree with you. Then pave the way to overcome polarization, to spread some love . 1. Your political beliefs Are you sure you freely choose your political positions after carefully reasoning each option ? If so, others should be able to freely choose it too, and agree with you. But they don’t, do they? Why? Because, in all honesty, you are compelled to choose a position that best fits your painful needs . As others are compelled to choose what best fits their needs. Reasoned arguments emerge after the fact. You politically believe what you need to believe . 2. Your political differences Needs . That’s the frequently overlooked part of politics. While you need the same basic things as others, how you need them differs from how others need them. And they can’t change how they need ‘em any easier than you can change how you need whatever is vital for you. The more your situation differs from theirs, the more differently you need from them. The more you need differently, the more your politics naturally diverge. 3. Politics defined Defining politics this way illuminates its risks for polarization. Instead of encouraging specifics , status quo politics spurs generalizing . You then avoid specifics that risk undermining party unity, and for agreeably relieving pain . Instead of engaging your specific needs, status quo politics enables avoidance . You then use politics to avoid dealing with the cause of the pain , instead of resolving the needs in a way that stops the pain. Instead of unifying around what can be done to resolve these needs, status quo politics favors polarization . You then get more out of fighting each other than fighting to resolve each other’s affected needs. ​ conflict porn = enjoying the conflict more than finding a solution. 4. Your needs takes sides So why does anyone become a liberal? Or a conservative? Mostly, because each partisan side serves a particular way of experiencing and expressing needs. One side experiences their psychosocial needs in the opposite direction as the other side. Your psychosocial situation prioritizes the opposite set of psychosocial needs . Liberals ​Conservatives ​must relieve unmet social needs . While guarding their more resolved self-needs . If a liberal , you feel you must relieve your social need for greater acceptance , for example, than your need for personal resilience . So you rely more on government protections against discrimination, than try to personally overcome repeated rejections by others. Meanwhile, you guard your more resolved self-need for personal authenticity , like being culturally nonwhite, or being gay, or trans, or a Muslim, against pressures to cooperate and conform with more traditional norms. The vulnerability of being disadvantaged can make that much more difficult. So you find solace among others of similar experience, and like-mind. ​must relieve unmet self-needs . While guarding their more resolved social needs . If a conservative , you feel you must relieve your self-need for self-sufficiency , for example, more than your need for equal social treatment . So you endeavor to provide for your own the best you can, before seeking fair help from others you don’t personally know. Meanwhile, you guard your more resolved social need for family cohesion , like safeguarding traditional marriage and the nuclear family, against pressures to allow self-expressions that risk destabilizing established cohesion. The expanding role of impersonal government can make that much more difficult. So you find solace among others of similar experience, and like-mind. Whether liberal or conservative , you become oriented to this distinction. Arguments cannot change who you are, or how you experience your needs sharply different from others. Arguments provide you and your cohorts a guarded shell, a fence to protect your vulnerable differences. Arguments that tend to politically privilege dishonesty on both sides. 5. Your political orientation Your political orientation is the outward expression of your inward psychosocial orientation . Any tension between your self-needs and social needs creates the lens through which you see all things political. ---- For example, if your undermined self-need for privacy  floods your thinking, you can hardly find space to consider another’s affected social need for intimacy . What you do with your own reproductive organs is too private a matter for you to open to another’s prying eyes. Or if your strained social need for reliable local supports  feels threatened by government mandates, you can barely appreciate another's vulnerable dependence upon such government provisions. You struggle to stick with your self-initiative , against temptations to depend more on impersonal others. 6. Your political orientation You believe with others what you need to believe . Your painful needs prioritize your perspective, to compel you to see what the other oriented side cannot easily see. If your social needs resolve less than your guarded self-needs , you're inwardly wide-oriented . If your self-needs resolve less than your guarded social needs , you're inwardly deep-oriented . If wide-oriented , you’re compelled to prioritize inclusion of the historically excluded . You feel the injustices they endured. If deep-oriented , you’re compelled to prioritize cohesion of the traditionally grouped . You feel the necessity to remain grounded. If wide-oriented , you’re compelled to prioritize the most vulnerable, to serve widening demand . For you, “Each according to their need.” If deep-oriented , you’re compelled to prioritize the most productive, to ensure a deep supply . For you, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” If wide-oriented , you rely on public goods, like public welfare . A safety net for the disadvantaged. ​If deep-oriented , you rely on private rights, like private enterprise . A meaningful service bringing depth to lives. If wide-oriented , you wonder if it is effective for the needy many . You likely see an active role for government, to effectively provide for the many who can barely provide for themselves. If deep-oriented , you wonder if it is efficient for the creative few . You likely see a minimal role for government, to efficiently produce for us all only what we cannot do for ourselves. If wide-oriented , you yearn to improve collective capacity , for those vulnerable to others. If deep-oriented , you yearn to improve individual capacity , for those with untapped potential. ​If wide-oriented , you call for freedom from oppression for those historically deprived . If deep-oriented , you call for freedom to provide for your own against pressures to accept disincentivizing handouts. ​If wide-oriented , you generalize about wider inclusion , wider public supports , wider efficacies , and wider freedoms from oppression . deep-oriented , you generalize about deeper cohesion , deeper private rights , deeper efficiencies , and deeper freedoms to provide for your own. ​ Liberal beliefs express these inner priorities. Conservative beliefs express these inner priorities. 7. False balance or false dichotomy? These are mutually exclusive mostly to those who are not whole . “ It’s best to hold onto one without letting go of the other . ” Sweeping generalizations make them appear more contradictory than they actually are. Sure, there are false balances in politics. Some policies lead to better results than others. But comparing the underlying needs is a false dichotomy . Your needs are no more important than another’s. When their needs go unmet, they cease to function as well as you when your needs go unmet. You could affirm the need for inclusion without neglecting cohesion . You could honor private property without neglecting public services. You could be both effective and efficient . All without the self-serving generalizing , or pain- avoidant outrage, or echo-chamber polarizing . The real political difference is not between between between No, the overlooked political difference is between between between A politics that overlooks the needs of others is not a legitimate politics at all. So generalizer , beware. Avoider , beware. Polarizer , beware. Judgment begins in earnest, as a helpful evaluation for how well you did or did not love your political friend and foe alike. Instead of waiting for the ballot box, let’s measure your impact now. After all, what gets measured gets done. By overcoming polarization, we can do it together now. 8. Your politicized needs Politics socially conveys your needs . No matter what position you or others take on any issue, your only honest difference is how to respond to needs. Not in the needs themselves. If I told you I'm thirsty, hot and tired, would you ever say, "I disagree"? If I said I'm lonely and need someone to talk to, would you debate it? The needs themselves are not open to debate. You can choose how you respond to these needs. You generally cannot choose the needs themselves. 9. Hold your ground So don’t let anyone trick you into giving up your political values for theirs. Their political values evolved to fit their needs, their situation, their prioritized needs . Not yours. Your politics don’t require replacement . They need refinement . Less pain-relieving generalizing, that doesn’t get to the cause of your pain. More need-resolving specifics, that removes the pain. Less mutual defensiveness . More understanding and engaging of one another’s differing situations. You don’t have to blindly compromise . You love in how you give, and convey the costs of that love. When political debating slips into disputing the needs themselves, reject this threat to love . 10. No conversion If you held to one side and then switched to the other, your needs allowed you to convert . It wasn’t the persuasion of political arguments alone. You can hardly go against what you painfully need. Your needs resist debate . Their needs resist your best arguments. As long as you experience a certain priority of psychosocial needs , your psychosocial orientation will not let you convert. Not any easier than to convert a lefthander to righthandedness, or introversion to extraversion, or same-sex attracted to opposite-sex attraction. It’s time to stop trying. It’s time to stop hating on others for differences they cannot change . It’s time to accept each other as It’s time to replace the status quo of politically privileged hate with this vitally needed unifying understanding love . 11. Issue by issue Issue by issue , we step back from hostile argument to appreciate the underlying inflexible needs . Together, we’ll replace the status quo of mutual hostilities with better loving understanding of each other’s affected needs. If we don’t, who will? So let’s apply this to the issue at hand. Ready? 12. Spread the love You will never find a lasting political solution until you first appreciate your difference in needs . If you want to be understood, seek first to understand. Look at your situation. How does it prioritize your needs? When looking into situations others face, do you only see your own familiar needs? If raised in a more urban environment , do you only see the need for cultural diversity in rural situations? Do you not see their need to maintain local initiative , for resourceful responsibility , to provide for their own in the middle of nowhere? Do you think they chose these needs? If raised in a more rural environment , do you only see the need for private property rights in urban situations? Do you not see their vulnerabilities to insensitivities , their need for government protections against less visible forms of exploitation , to avoid being re-traumatized ? Do you think they chose these needs? If you do not love others in how you respect their difference in needs, why on earth would you expect them to respect your differing needs? Issue by issue, we pull you out of your shell. Together, we cross a bridge to the other political side, to respect their needs as we would have them respect our own. Issue, by issue, we dare you to love. If you don’t, who will? So, please, Together, Let's unpack politics Check out my eCourse on Udemy Defusing Polarization: Understanding Divisive Politics Realize how your differently experienced needs create political differences and fuels polarization. Your responsiveness to such unpacking of our political differences Your turn. Consider one or more of these options to respond to this need-responsive content. Explore similar content by clicking on the tags below. Find similar content under this politics 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

Do you treat the wrongly convicted innocent as if they are guilty? below is the script for this video Let me introduce you to a fresh concept: “ innocence offending ”. Anyone who treats a wrongly convicted innocent person as “guilty” offends that person if complicitly denying them of their stolen rights . All under color of law . This exists as a legally privileged offense. By innocent, I mean the convicted person had no role in the reported offense. But surely there aren’t that many innocent people in prison, are there?   Scale of the problem Well, actually, there are. Between 4 and 6% of all prisoners are actually innocent . Not wrongly convicted because of some legal technicality. But they played no role in the crime whatsoever. Or there was no crime. Like when an infant dies from an undiagnosed brain hemorrhage, and the mother is found guilty of shaken baby syndrome . That amounts to about a hundred thousand innocent people who are falsely incarcerated. Sure, some of these have sorted pasts, but many—like myself—have no other criminal record. With around nineteen million Americans with a felony record , that comes to about a million innocent lives treated as if they are felons when they’re actually not. Damaging consequences Many of these innocent defendants serve the full time in prison, being denied for parole because they could not show remorse, and then get released without their rights restored. They endure what are called “ collateral consequences of criminal conviction ”. Meaning that they may be excluded from certain types of jobs, or not allowed to be licensed for certain professions, and not allowed to own or posses a firearm. There are thousands of such restrictions on the books, damaging the lives of the innocent beyond prison. All because the adversarial judicial system mistakenly marked them as felons. Injustice in the name of justice The law privileges such violation of rights because misapplication of the law produced the wrongful conviction in the first place. The tables then turn. These innocent defendants become victims of the very legal system we count upon to protect us from victimizers. The current legal system remains slow in identifying and admitting such errors. And even slower in correcting them. At the time of this writing, less than four thousand have been exonerated . The legal system moves like molasses. Depressing despair What can the wrongly convicted innocent do if the legal system itself is the primary offender? What can you do about it? What if you find out that you could be an innocence offender ? That refers to anyone who violates the rights of the wrongly convicted innocent. If you passively defer to the imperfections and errors of the adversarial judicial system, you could be smeared as a complicit innocence offender. What you can do What can you do to avoid becoming complicit in this hidden crisis? You can start by checking your beliefs. Elites who benefit from this imperfect adversarial system count on you accepting a number of myths that keep them in power. You risk being complicit if you believe and act upon any of these widely held but false views about the accused and wrongly convicted. Or about the criminal justice system in general. Face your misconceptions I give you twelve of these questionable myths that might already accept without question. How much do you believe any of these statements? Do you believe that people generally get what they deserve? Do you believe that all or at least most prisoners claim they're innocent? Do you believe that high conviction rates contribute to a reduction in crime? Do you believe that the U.S. has the best judicial system in the world? Do you believe that wrongful convictions of the innocent rarely occur? Do you believe that a criminal defendant is more likely to lie than a police officer? Do you believe that if someone gets arrested, they must have done something wrong? Do you believe that no one would confess to a crime unless they're guilty in some way? Do you believe that forensics evidence provides conclusive proof of culpability? Do you believe that the appeals process will correct any miscarriages of justice? Do you believe that eyewitness identification of a perpetrator is consistently reliable? Do you believe that the judge is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system? The more you believe such falsehoods, and dismiss viable claims of innocence, the more likely you are an “innocence offender”. You become something of a “ useful   idiot ” to those who benefit from such general ignorance of the judicial system’s many imperfections.   They're using you Current power structures disincentivize them from alerting you to their failures. They exploit your diminished awareness to hold significant influence over you. They benefit from your naivety for how the adversarial judicial system actually works—or doesn’t work. The more you accept these widely accepted assumptions, the more they are served at your expense. And at the expense of the innocent. Hope Want to do something about it? Well, that comes next. Question your beliefs about 'justice' Do you accept or questions such beliefs? See also: Innocence Denying (Slate article), especially by prosecutors Hofstra Law Review (also from Lara Bazelon ) Innocence Project Injustice Watch NPR Plus: 17 cases of denied innocence

Need-Response: A revolutionary solution to anxiety and depression Video chapters Problem 00:07 Solution 01:04 Mission 01:30 Vision 02:01 Inspiration 02:45 Founder 03:17 Power dynamics 04:29 Pain of unmet needs 05:10 Better than psychotherapy 06:07 Better than law 07:30 Toxic legalism 08:46 Good faith responsiveness 09:58 Hero's journey 10:43 What are the costs? 11:23 Potential applications 12:34 Urgency 13:11 Wellness resistance 14:19 You’re invited 15:48 Steps you can take 16:23 1. The problem                                                        00:07 "Rates of anxiety and depression among U.S. adults, especially younger folks, continues to rise, the latest federal data shows. Nearly 1 in every 5, or 18.2% of adults, reported anxiety issues in 2022. That’s up from 15.6% in 2019.” – US News and World Repor t “The percentage of U.S. adults who report having been diagnosed with depression at some point in their lifetime has reached 29.0%, nearly 10 percentage points higher than in 2015. The percentage of Americans who currently have or are being treated for depression has also increased, to 17.8%, up about seven points over the same period.” - Gallup “Depression remains prevalent despite many treatment options. A new study  suggests that this ‘ treatment prevalence paradox ’ is rooted in three key issues: misunderstandings about the nature of depression, overstated effectiveness of existing treatments, and poor accessibility to care.” – Mad in America 2. Solution                                                              01:04 Only need-response  can promise to identify and address the source of such rising rates of depression and anxiety: Unresolved needs beyond one’s control. Only need-response understands how you are naturally anxious and depressed when hindered from resolving your vulnerable needs. Only need-response  establishes your needs as objective facts , occurring independent of your emotional awareness. 3. Mission                                                                01:30 Need-response  aims to identify, address and resolve those needs underserved by all other available options. Need-response  equips you to address powerholders and social structures that hinder you from adequately resolving your powerful needs. Which can leave you anxious and depressed. Need-response incentivizes the powerful to improve your wellbeing. Their professional reputation improves when their guided responsive-ness to your power-affected needs results in measurably better outcomes. 4. Vision                                                                  02:01 With your input, the Anankelogy Foundation seeks to create a viable need-responsive service within a year. You’re invited to follow along by listening to a podcast by the same name. You could help us test this new service, if you’re an innovator who’s eager to create what you yourself urgently need. And if you’re willing to risk trying something untested. Together, we can test and refine it, to establish the marketability of this pioneering service within a year or two, refine it as we go along. To professionally serve clients who have nowhere else to turn. To ultimately improve the wellness outcomes of all involved in this service. No other available service accountably  improves your wellbeing. 5. Inspiration                                                           02:45 I was inspired to create need-response  to fill the gap left wide open by the law   and psychotherapy .  Neither can properly appreciate our political differences or faithfully serve our justice needs. Both try to relieve your pain without fully addressing the needs causing you emotional pain like anxiety and depression. The law can only do so much. Psychotherapy primarily looks inward. Politics remain a mess. Activism falls short. We cannot solve our specific problems from the level of generalizing that created them . 6. Founder                                                              03:17 My name is Steph, a poster child with all that can go wrong with the law. I’m an asexual trans person who ended up on the lifetime sex offender registry for an assault that never occurred. The accuser could not risk being outed as a lesbian, so concocted a bizarre story of sexual abuse. This all exploded during the sex abuse panic of the 80s and 90s . And when many in the public were convinced that LGBTQ+ adults were child recruiting predators , and when no corroborating evidence   was necessary to convict by those who believed such things . I wish I could reach out to her and affirm her same-sex attraction. I wish I could let her know I understand her desperation to protect herself from being rejected by her family, and to forgive her for ruining my life. But the law hinders such reconciliation and resolution. The law can only do so much. Need-response  prioritizes resolving personal needs over serving impersonal laws. When misapplied, the law does not solve needs but easily provokes more problems. Need-response restores the power of love , of honoring the needs of others as our own . Where careless laws hurt, need-response heals. 7. Power dynamics                                                  04:29 Mostly, need-response  levels the playing field between the powerful and relatively powerless. Need-response  addresses power dynamics. Need-response  serves clients who feel powerless in the face of powerholders who negatively impact their lives. Need-response  identifies each client as the RI : “Reporting Impactee” who is impacted by the relationship more than impacting it. Need-response  identifies powerholders as the AI : “Ascribed Impactor” who impacts the relationship more than impacted by it. Need-response  levels the playing field. Both are treated as humans with inflexible needs . The   more each side can resolve their needs, the more everyone’s wellness improves. 8. Pain of unmet needs                                            05:10 Individuals and systems of power don’t resolve needs simply because they wield significant influence. Or because you rely on them to ease your pain. Despite their best intentions, those in positions of power can easily hurt you .  Only by resolving your needs does your pain go away . Neither the law nor psychotherapy effectively address these sources of your emotional pain of anxiety and depression. If only relieving your pain, they risk permitting your needs to painfully persist . There is no such thing as pain or desire apart from unresolved needs .   Pain is not the problem as much as the unmet needs your pain exists to report . Your objective needs subjectively express themselves in your emotions . Only need-response recognizes how you only experience pain  when your body warns you of some excess  to remove . And you only experience  desire  when your body propels you to replenish something depleted . Only need-response  offers to remove cause for your pain, like anxiety and depression. The cyclic pattern for your objective needs 9. Better than psychotherapy                                  06:07 Need-response  goes further than psychotherapy when unpacking emotions. After identifying each affected feeling, need-response links it to your affected needs. Then distinguishes between what you can do about it and what you can't do about it. Unlike psychotherapy's intent to help you feel better, need-response equips you to address those people and things limiting your ability to fully resolve such needs. What you can't personally do about your unmet needs then shifts into what others can do for you affected needs, and what you can do about theirs. Only need-response  recognizes how you only experience depression when your body warns you of a threat to your wellbeing. You only experience anxiety when your body warns you of a threat of something you sense you’re ill equipped to handle alone. Only need-response  recognizes how you only suffer addiction when unable to replenish what your body requires. So you crave whatever offers you some hope for relief from the natural pain of your unmet needs. Only need-response  investigates each source of your emotional pain. Only need-response equips you to speak truth to power  in a way that incentivizes them to listen to those impacted . need-response's 'impact parity model' Instead of trying to relieve your pain from unmet needs, as the legal process and psychotherapy do, need-response  works to remove cause for your pain . 10. Better than law                                                 07:30   Need-response  inspires you to go beyond legal requirements to proactively support resolving the needs of others, to incentivize them to support resolving your needs. The more each other’s needs resolve, the more you reduce or remove each other’s pain. The law cannot remove your pain. When coldly applied, it can unnecessarily add to your pain. While no one sits above the law, no law sits above the needs they exist to serve . Laws follow needs. Need-response  cuts to the chase by identifying the needs any cited law is expected to serve. And then examines how those needs are actually impacted by those in charge. The more you put flexible laws ahead of your inflexible needs, the greater your risk for anxiety and depression. The more you can prioritize your inflexible needs over flexible laws, the lower your risk for anxiety or depression, or for addictions. I learned to put away my depression by removing threats to my purposeful living. My anxiety evaporated when learning how to handle traumatizing events like the wrongful conviction. I suffer no addictions as I promptly replenish the basics my body requires. All by keeping the role of norms and laws in their proper place. Need-response  seeks to do the same for you. 11. Toxic legalism                                                   08:46 Need-response  specializes in helping you identify a common yet overlooked source of your painful problems: toxic legalism . These are the five primary components of this destructive force. Toxic legalism  is where you put flexible social norms over your inflexible needs. It points to five factors trapping you in pain and despair. 1. Hyper-individuality . Where you blame yourself for things beyond your personal control. 2. Hyperrationality . Where you mask your vulnerabilities under the guard of reasonable sounding arguments. 3. Overgeneralizing . Where you cling to comforting generalities to the point you skip dealing with relevant specifics, which could liberate you from the pain you try to avoid. 4. Avoidance . Where you remain alienated from others in the vain pursuit of avoiding any further pain. Which actually traps you in more pain. And 5. Adversarialism . Where you quickly oppose others with an oppositional stance, instead of engaging them to cultivate mutual understanding and potential support. The legal process and psychotherapy are often guilty of these. Such toxic legalism  fuels your anxiety and depression, and can feed your addictions as you struggle to cope with the pain. 12. Good faith responsiveness                                 09:58 Need-response  counters all five of these toxic factors. It sharpens your ability to respond to the needs of others in good faith. Need-response  is nonadversarial . You exhaust all options of mutuality before taking any oppositional stance. Need-response  is engaging . You get to know each other’s affected needs, and explore what each can honestly do about them. Need-response  is nuanced . You delve into the specifics to resolve needs. Need-response  is boldly honest . You dig down deeper into how you actually experience your needs. Need-response  is holistic . You balance what you need with what other’s need. Need-response  takes you from the ordinary realm of toxic legalism  into this extraordinary realm of greater responsiveness to needs. 13. Hero’s journey                                                  10:43 You likely don’t even realize how you’re now trapped in the ordinary world , with your hand stuck in the monkey trap. Need-response  takes you on the hero’s journey from the ordinary world of quiet misery into the extraordinary world of liberation. The hero's journey in the need-response service You go through 16 distinct steps on this empowering adventure to greater wellness. We craft a story to inspire the public how to create meaningful change. You keep private what you must. After entering the extraordinary realm, we sharpen your skills to resolve needs. You return back to the ordinary world a new person, ready to resolve more needs, remove more pain, and improve wellness. 14. What are the costs?                                           11:23  Improving wellness is need-response ’s bottom line. Providers only get fully paid if your wellness measurably improves. If your baseline of anxiety and depression actually improves. Sessions occur online, one-on-one at first. The first session is free, as a trial period. the five phases of the wellness campaign, each addressing a different layer of a problem The process moves through four to five phases. You gain supporters as the process evolves. Unlike the solo effort of psychotherapy as a private health cost, you attract a team of supporters, who champion your cause to speak truth to power . Your supporters benefit from your gains. They share the costs of the service, as they invest in your wellness improvement journey. No insurance panels to impress. No retainer or expensive legal fees. Along the way, you help powerholders to be more responsive to the needs they impact. You help them become better leaders by holding them accountable to your impacted wellness outcomes. You potentially inspire some to mature as transformative leaders. You support them to alter the social structures to be more responsive to us all. That’s the untapped potential of replacing adversarialism norms with mutual regard for each other’s needs. 15. Potential applications                                        12:34 Consider what this visionary service can do for you. It could potentially solve the problem of political polarization . It could potentially solve the problem of wrongful convictions of the innocent . It could potentially solve the problem of source captured journalism. It could potentially solve the problem of student debt and predatory loans. It could potentially solve the problem of medical debt and unresponsive insurance. It could potentially solve many problems undermining our failing institutions. Or we can soldier on with our painful problems and rely more heavily on addictive pain coping methods . 16. Urgency                                                             13:11 Let me be blunt. Without need-response  or something like it, we’re all screwed. We must do better to respond to each other’s needs, before we slip further into the abyss of dismal despair. We need fewer imposing laws and more grace to fulfill the demands of our existent laws. We need less convincing and more understanding. We need less intellectualizing and more love. It doesn’t take a genius to spread warmth with a smile. Love is the answer, when defining love as honoring the needs of others as our healthier selves would have them honor our own needs . Need-response  rekindles our potential to be more loving to each other. Only the professional service of need-response champions these traits in our sacred texts. Only need-response  specifically addresses the source of many folk’s anxiety and depression, by confronting impersonal power structures. Only need-response  dares to bring elites down to our level, as fellow human beings, to show them how we can improve their effectiveness, and then charge them for the privilege. This merely skims the surface of what  need-response could potentially become. 17. Wellness resistance                                           14:19 Yes, need-response radically departs from some of our established norms. It could easily alarm detractors. Those most invested in the unhealthy status quo may resist, and push back. This vision easily provokes the defenses of those reliant on the familiar status quo. Those who benefit from keeping us pitted against each other, instead of working with each other, may pose a threat. And not even realize it. It sounds so strange, so unlikely to work, and easy to dismiss. Perhaps you prefer to play it safe. As a sacred misfit frequently targeted for not fitting into their imposing norms, like gender stereotypes, I am no stranger to violent pushback. As someone spiritually compelled to transcend divisive norms to resolve  needs, which is called a ‘ transspirit ’, I could not play it safe. I continue to endure blowback for being so radically different. Despite earning several college degrees, and having no other trouble with the law, I remain underemployed and poorly housed. Being wrongly listed as a sex offender left me recently homeless for a year. I will need to count upon others to help build this vision. I’m like Nikola Tesla digging ditches , because Mr. Edison couldn’t appreciate his brilliance. Thomas Edison was too invested in direct current to give Tesla’s visionary alternative a chance. But Westinghouse recognized and invested in Tesla’s vision for alternating current. We’re all better off for adopting Tesla’s vision. 18. You’re invited                                                   15:48 Who will recognize and invest in this alternative to legal services and psychotherapy? Who with the means can help establish this vision for cultivating a world with less anxiety and less depression? Are you a disillusioned lawyer?   Are you a disillusioned psychotherapist?   You could be among the most qualified to become its first service providers, called need-responders . Consider this new visionary service as a better way to serve your clients. Consider its potential for you to earn more income . Consider its potential to boost your professional prestige. 19. Steps you can take                                            16:23 Read the full prospectus  to learn more. Go to AnankelogyFoundation.org and engage others taking interest in this new service. Listen to the Need-Response podcast , starting Wednesday 30th of April 2025, and subscribe if you like what you hear. You can follow for free , getting free progress updates in your inbox. And you can invest as little as $5 each month  to help create this pioneering service. Let us co-create what the world needs now. If we don’t, who will? Let us spread the love we all crave. If we don’t, who will? What to learn more about need-response? Learn more about this new service of need-response by listening to the Need-Response podcast . Episodes each Wednesday, starting 30 April 2025. click this image to go to our podcast page

Character refunctions cover the universal principles found in many spiritual paths. Unlike other types of refunctions, you can personally restore wellness by applying these. Need-response utilizes these in a wellness campaign , when the campaigner exhausts all they can personally do to resolve the need behind their wellness goals. PIXABAY STOCK IMAGE: Scripture-inspired qualities that can objectively help to resolve needs. Which do you perceive will be more effective? Keep relying on impersonal rules and ideologies to try to fix our many problems. OR Try relying on universal ethical principles to resolve the needs behind problems. You can find all twenty of these character qualities in various scriptures. You can also find correlations throughout history between application of these laudable traits and improved functioning, or wellness. Likewise, you can observe how the less these principles get applied, the lower the ability to function. Each of these positive qualities exist independent of their subjective interpretation and application. While the context can be relatively cultural, the applicability of such universal principles will affect human functioning the same across all cultures and across time. For example, the less one forthrightly provides all relevant information to address a need that impacts another (i.e., dishonest), the lack of this vital information will objectively diminish the impacted person's ability to fully function. In other words, the less honest, the more problems. Not because of any belief a problem will emerge, but because relevant information is objectively necessary to make good decisions to addressing the objective reality of unchosen needs. Need-response utilizes these qualities as "character refunctions" that each individual can apply with or without others. A refunction is anything that restores function. Elsewhere, we cover refunctions at the interpersonal, power, and structural levels. Check out these character refunctions and how they can improve your life. ONE: Foundational relating TWO: Renewing relationships THREE: Life's challenges FOUR: Reaching excellence Character refunctions brochures Character refunctions list with links Cultivating character ONE: Foundational relating These qualities provide a bit of lubricant to the many frictions in life. 1. Gratitude The more you show your thankfulness, the more your needs resolve. Orient yourself to make the most of what you receive in life and avoid taking it for granted. Position yourself with your attitude to receive more of what your life requires. Affirm other's generosity toward you. Insist others not take your offerings for granted. Spur their gratitude by refusing their exploitation of your generosity. With more gratitude, observe more needs resolv ing.  COUNTERS ingratitude, arrogant entitlement, alienation, impersonal quid pro quo   2. Humility The less arrogant you are toward others, the more your needs resolve. Drop any pretense that you know best for others. Don’t cling too tightly to what you think must be good for yourself. Make room for others to face you honestly and interact with you as authentically as possible. Let your pride balance with your capacity to be critiqued. Nurture the humility in others by not provoking their defensiveness, but instead treating them with kindness. With more humility, see more needs resolve. COUNTERS hubris, unrealistic expectations, presumptive attitude, superiority, pretension 3. Honesty The more others hear you speak truthfully, the more your needs resolve. Say what you need to say without guile. Avoid manipulating others with words you know aren't true. Avoid putting yourself in a situation you feel you must deceive others. Nurture a reputation of being reliable in what you express. Be authentic. Hold others to a higher standard of being forthright with you. See how honesty resolves more needs in your life.    COUNTERS dishonesty, deception, inauthenticity, hiding, distrust, guile 4. Kindness The more you pleasantly smile and encourage others, the more your needs resolve. Refrain from harsh words. Give encouragement to those in need. Smile more towards others, even if they do not smile back. Let your smile sustain your positive attitude, especially in those moments when you don't feel like smiling. Yet be sure your positive regard stays sincere. Be an example of the level of kindness we all need for more civil interactions, leading to more meaningful lives. COUNTERS rudeness, incivility, loneliness, social disconnection, low self-esteem 5. Gentleness The softer you approach others in need of care, the more your needs resolve. Be ready to give a softer touch where appropriate. Stay sensitive to those who appear alarmed by any harshness. They may be going through intense pain, or suffering some kind of trauma. Discern when a scalpel is better than a sledgehammer. Know where it's best to be humble yet firm. Tread softly through a field of wounded soldiers. Avoid reopening old wounds. Let your gentleness help them to more fully heal and grow strong.  COUNTERS brashness, discourtesy, insensitivity, provoked defensiveness TWO: Renewing relationships These qualities turn around the damage we sometimes do to each other. 6. Grace The more you humbly admit your current imperfections, the more your needs resolve. Admit where you are honestly at in life, and not quite where you or others expect you to be. Release yourself from unrealistic expectations, and appreciate getting to your goals one step at a time. Allow room for unavoidable setbacks.  Meet others where they are at, instead of where you may expect them to be. With more grace, observe more needs resolving.  COUNTERS unrealistic expectations, debilitating perfectionism, overreach, disillusionment, self-righteousness, defensiveness 7. Forgiveness The more you let go of your anger toward those who wronged you, the more your needs resolve. Let go of your anger when wronged. Release yourself from your own self-chastisement. View any infringement of your rights as a mistake they can freely admit. Give others the space to honestly admit their imperfections. Rebuild trust by acknowledging your errors toward others. See how forgiveness resolves more needs. COUNTERS grudges, revenge, overreaction, impeding improvements, misunderstandings 8. Atonement The more you rebuild your trustworthiness after admitting a wrong, the more your needs resolve. After letting go of your anger with forgiveness, continue nurturing the relationship by offering to restore any losses. Rebuild trust by compensating others for any damage for actions caused. Respect where others cannot go on without restoring what they’ve lost. Connect with others where they hurt, with empathetic generosity. Respond to other's gestures toward you who seek to rebuild any damaged trust. See how atonement resolves needs.  COUNTERS sugarcoating, distrust, damaged rapport, rationalizations, wasted potential 9. Mercy The more you let go of your rightful reaction to being wronged, the more your needs resolve. Be ready to let go not only of your anger, but let go also of your right to exact vengeance for a suffered wrong. Give more room to restore a damaged relationship by offering to forgo just compensation. Inspire their gratitude toward you with your readiness, willingness, and ability to clear their debts toward you. Engender mercy from others with your humility and remorse. Let your mercy demonstrate your love for others. See mercy resolve more needs. COUNTERS obsessive anger, indulgent retribution, perpetuating harm, violence cycles 10. Justice The more you pursue what is fair for all, the more your needs resolve. There is more to justice than grieving a loss due to violence. Step beyond mere relief to address your needs with others on par with them respecting their needs with you. Hold others accountable who try to ease their needs or wants at your unwelcome expense. While life isn't fair, interactions in relationships are either fair with balanced results or that relationship does not work. Instead of reacting with revenge, embarrass them by responding to their needs better than they respond to yours. Hold both sides to the same standard of conduct for any relation. See how substantive justice resolves more needs.  COUNTERS premature vengeance, mutual defensiveness, self-righteous hurting, conflict porn THREE: Life's challenges These qualities equip you for the many pitfalls you face in life. 11. Endurance The more of life’s discomforts you can boldly take, the more your needs resolve. Tolerate discomfort for as long as you can, and then for a little while longer. Discover your untapped capacity to tolerate more pain than you could before. Stretch your comfort zone, as you realize your body can suffer colder and hotter extremes with little to no lasting harm. Become stronger as you stretch your limits to tolerate more and more. Know you can more fully resolve more needs the more you can endure.  COUNTERS desertion, disavowal, abandonment, premature quitting, resignation 12. Perseverance The further you apply yourself to what must be done, the more your needs resolve. Consistently address needs as long as possible to fully resolve them. Avoid giving up if not immediately seeing expected results. Avoid settling for less than resolving a need. Let it take time to cover all angles. Build momentum. Pause if you must, then pick up where you left off. See this to the end to make the most from all your efforts. See how persevering through even the most challenging tasks can more fully resolve needs. COUNTERS discouragement, compromising standards, missing excellence, complacency 13. Discipline The longer you can delay gratification for what you want, the more your needs resolve. Put off getting rewards until layer. Delay gratification to work a little longer on creating better results. Trust you can endure discomforts a little while longer for sweeter rewards. Since you may not recognize when indulging yourself at another's expense, keep yourself accountable to others you affect. Set a boundary for others not to indulge themselves at your unwelcome expense. Watch how discipline resolves more needs.  COUNTERS self-indulgence, premature satisfaction, discomfort avoidance 14. Equanimity The more you can hold firm amidst calamity, the more your needs resolve. Cultivate your ability to not be easily perturbed by negative circumstances. Realize you can be knocked down a few times in life and still get up. Find how you can grow stronger after healing from each wound. Find your ground and stand firm to resolve needs. See how you flinch less during conflicts when you are more grounded with resolved needs. COUNTERS anxiety, paralyzing apprehension, hypervigilance, retraumatization 15. Resilience The more you get back up after being knocked down, the more your needs resolve. Avoid assuming each painful circumstance shall hold you back. Try bouncing back as soon as possible. Get back on your feet while it still hurts. Realize you can typically endure more discomfort than you likely give me yourself credit. Stretch your capacity to take punishing blows by leaning more on your social supports. Find how resilience allows you to resolve more needs.  COUNTERS victimization, recurring harm, overdependence, helplessness FOUR: Reaching excellence These qualities prepare you to rise to the occasion to fulfill more of your life's potential. 16. Patience The longer you can wait for what you rightfully expect, the more your needs resolve. Allow more time for anticipated results. Wait as long as possible to more fully resolve a need. Avoid rushing into easier alternatives that can keep you from your full potential. Take as much time as necessary to regard all the needs involved. Yet, remain wary of expecting unrealistic results in the name of patience. And avoid exploiting the patience of others. See how properly disciplined patience resolves more needs.  COUNTERS impatience, impetuous pursuits, sabotaging excellence 17. Trustworthiness The more you keep your word and do as you say, the more your needs resolve. Let others faithfully count on you. Build your reputation for being reliable. Be there consistently when you agree to support them in their hour of need. Avoid expecting others to trust you until they can experience you repeatedly supporting what they need of you. Promptly warn others of unrealistic expectations of you, to safeguard your trustworthiness. COUNTERS toxic skepticism, perceived unreliability, poor reputation, social avoidance 18. Generosity The more you give of yourself to others in need, the more your needs resolve. Let goods and services flow through you. Be a conduit through which others can find what they require to resolve their needs. Trust you will receive what your life requires the more you offer what you can give to satisfy what others require. Accumulate only to give. Discover how giving adds meaning to possessing stuff, as your generosity resolves more needs.  COUNTERS stinginess, materialism, hoarding, alienation, economic inequality 19. Empathy The more you see through the eyes of others, the more your needs resolve. Understand others through their own eyes, and less through the lens of your own expectations. Relate to them on their level. Feel their hurt when they are in pain. Feel their joy when life is in sync for them. Encounter their needs as if they were your needs in the moment. Look at life through their experiences, their daily challenges, and their needs in the moment. Let others empathize more with you by being less guarded. Feel more needs resolve with more empathy.  COUNTERS normative alienation, hyper-rationality, stagnant relations, violence 20. Love The more positive regard you show toward others, the more your needs resolve. Value life simply for its existence. Regard each other with high esteem. Honor their needs as you would have them honor yours. As much as it depends on you, and as much as you can, put their needs ahead of your own. At least in the moment when they are most in need. Model to others how you are to be treated by proactively valuing them and their current needs. Be known and affirmed for who you authentically are, as you do the same toward others. Bond with those closest to you. Reinforce each other's positive regard to spread love.  COUNTERS animosity, outrage porn, hostility, disrespect, isolation, hyper-individualism Character refunctions brochures. You can download this list as a PDF trifold brochure. This printable brochure first opens in another tab. You can also download a copy which includes Bible references. Anankelogy recognizes each spiritual path serves human needs with universal principles like these. Eventually, we hope to provide a copy referencing all spiritual paths. Character refunctions list with links Use the link in each of these listed character refunctions to reference each helpful resource. gratitude grace endurance patience humility forgiveness perseverance trustworthiness honesty atonement discipline generosity kindness mercy equanimity empathy gentleness justice resilience love Cultivating character You can nurture these qualities in our need-response development eCourses. The first one is free. The second costs less than a cup of coffee. Viewing these programs requires you to log in to ensure agreement with our terms of use . NR101  Personal Need-Responder Aims to develop your " easement orientation " from prioritizing relief to prioritizing resolve. This course can help bring out your "life challenges" character refunctions: endurance - the more you stretch your tolerance for discomfort, the more pain you can endure perseverance - the more discomfort you can take, the longer you can persevere discipline - the less you habitually react to pain, the longer you can delay satisfaction equanimity - the less provoked by moments of pain, the more you can maintain calm resilience - the more discomfort you can endure, the easier to bounce back from painful setbacks NR201  Social Need-Responder Aims to develop your " conflict orientation " from prioritizing defensive to prioritizing engagement. This course can help bring out your "renew relationships" character refunctions: grace - the more you meet others where they're at, the less you're pulled into conflict forgiveness - the more you get past your anger, the less others guilt your faults atonement - the more overtures to restore loss you caused, the more you melt their antagonism mercy - the more you can suffer loss, the more you inspire others to get past their losses justice - the more responsive to their needs, the more they can be fairly responsive to your needs You begin to develop these qualities soon after signing up for a wellness warmup exercise. You employ kindness, generosity, empathy, and humility. By simply offering to do something that someone requires, you cultivate trustworthiness, gratitude, honesty, and love. Need-response is all about resolving needs, to remove cause for pain, and restore wellness. Both your needs and the needs of others you impact. And just think how it often begins simple enough with one of these basic qualities. If not enough to solve a problem facing you, these help establish your moral foundation . The more you demonstrate such qualities, the more you can attract others to co-create a solution to almost any problem . Essentially, that's what a wellness campaign is all about. Other character refunctions Beyond these twenty, other noble qualities can be added that also lead to resolving more needs. You can apply each character trait this way: "The more we apply [THIS TRAIT], the more our needs will resolve." Our pain will recede, and our wellness will improve. Click the right arrow to expand the text, to see the result from this prompt. Or click the prompted text in purple and see the results in another tab in your browser.. Google AI prompt: list of moral qualities like empathy, grace, honesty, humility, understanding, patience, resilience, mercy, etc Many lists of moral qualities, or virtues, exist across cultures and philosophies, with common themes including compassion, honesty, and justice. While the names and emphasis may differ, most moral qualities focus on how one behaves toward others and the world.  Qualities related to integrity and character Accountability :  Taking responsibility for one's actions and their consequences. Authenticity :  Being genuine and true to one's own personality and character. Dependability:  Being reliable and consistent in fulfilling commitments. Fairness :  Treating all people equally and justly, without bias. Honesty:  Being truthful and transparent in words and actions. Integrity:  Upholding strong moral principles and consistently doing the right thing, even when no one is watching. Justice:  Acting in a way that upholds what is right and fair for all. Loyalty :  Being faithful and committed to people and values. Responsibility :  Taking ownership of one's duties and being reliable. Sincerity :  Acting and communicating in a genuine and earnest manner. Trustworthiness:  Being honest and dependable, and worthy of another person's trust.  Qualities related to compassion and kindness Altruism :  Helping others selflessly, without expecting anything in return. Benevolence :  The quality of being well-meaning and kindly. Charity :  Showing kindness and goodwill toward others. Compassion :  Showing kindness and concern for the suffering and well-being of others. Empathy:  The ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Forgiveness:  Letting go of anger and resentment towards those who have wronged you. Generosity:  Giving freely of one's time, resources, and support. Gentleness:  Being mild, kind, and tender. Grace:  Showing kindness and courtesy to others. Kindness:  The quality of being friendly, considerate, and generous. Mercy:  Showing compassion or forgiveness toward someone you have the power to punish or harm. Respect:  Treating others with dignity and consideration, regardless of differences.  Qualities related to self-regulation and mindset Courage:  Facing fears and challenges with bravery. Curiosity :  A strong desire to learn and explore new things. Gratitude:  Being aware of and thankful for the good things in life. Hope :  Expecting the best and working to achieve a good future. Humility:  Remaining modest and open to learning, recognizing one's limitations without arrogance. Modesty:  Being neither vain nor shameless about one's accomplishments. Open-mindedness :  Willingness to consider different perspectives and new ideas. Patience:  Remaining calm and understanding in difficult situations. Perseverance:  Continuing to work toward a goal despite obstacles and setbacks. Resilience:  The capacity to recover from or adjust to challenging life experiences. Self-control :  The power to regulate one's emotions, thoughts, and behavior. Self- discipline:  The ability to stay focused and avoid distractions. Self-reflection :  The ability to introspect and increase self-awareness. Temperance :  Exercising moderation and self-restraint. Wisdom :  The quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment.  Also check out these lists online. Virtues List Core Values Virtues list (pdf) Hiring-for-fit values list (pdf) 50+ Positive Character Traits & Examples for Strong Personalities 21 Traits of Good Character Some Lists of Virtues 100+ Positive Character Traits with Examples 80 examples of virtues: What makes us morally good? Also consider The Big 6 Personality Traits , otherwise known as the HEXACO model : Honesty-Humility : Individuals with high scores are sincere, fair, and modest, while those with low scores may be greedy, manipulative, and arrogant.  Emotionalit y : High scorers are sensitive and empathetic, while low scorers are less prone to sentimentality and fear.  Extraversion : Those with high scores are sociable, talkative, and confident, while low scorers tend to be more reserved and quiet.  Agreeableness : High scorers are forgiving, gentle, and patient, whereas low scorers are more likely to be angry and resentful.  Conscientiousness : High scorers are organized, diligent, and prudent, while low scorers may be more disorganized and impulsive.  Openness to Experience :  Individuals high in this trait are aesthetically appreciative, creative, and inquisitive.  If you can think of anymore, please add them to the comments below. Thank you. back-to-top

The 7th step in the need-response process Institutions pit us against each other, but there is a far more effective alternative that can tap into our love. The "mutuality process" serves as a more need-responsive alternative to presumed opposition. Legal institutions of the judiciary and politics both rely on adversarialism. Adversarialism can be defined as Opposing others largely for the sake of opposition. What's wrong with adversarialism? Adversarialism isn't about constructive criticism. Rather, it goes to extremes to oppose others as if others have nothing of value to offer. Instead of tapping into our human potential to solve problems by relating to each other's inflexible needs or inflexible priorities, adversarialism pits you against others in a conflict. It tends to exacerbate each other's conflict orientation, away from staying open to learning amids a conflict and toward remaining hostly guarded. In his book Rambo and the Dalai Lama, The Compulsion to Win and Its Threat to Human Survival, author Gordon Fellman exposes many shortcomings in such adversarialism. Here are two of my own that complements his words. There are many more. Prematurely provokes defensiveness, often resulting in mutual defensiveness that detracts from each side's potential to fully resolve the conflict. Blind spots get ignored with motivated reasoning. Responsibility gets projected onto others. Little to no effort gets invested in addrsesing each other's affected needs. Prioritizes relieving pain over removing cause for pain, which is unresolved needs. The winner in a court battle or at the ballot box typically receive relief from the pain of their unresolved needs. Since the adversarialist approach does not actively seek to resolve the winner's affected needs, the pain persists to warn of this threat to functioning. The mutuality process in a nutshell The mutuality process utilizes the professional communication format of sandwiching a piece of bad news between two slices of good new. This effectively delivers positive intent, to avoid provoking defensiveness. Another way of characterizing this approach is conveying a Positive, then a Negative, and finishing on a Positive note: PNP. More precisely, the mutuality process employs a simple A-B-C process. A. Affirm the other side's needs Affirm the other side's presenting or identified needs. POSITIVE; GOOD NEWS Adversarialism tends to selfishly assert one's own needs while ignoring the needs of the other side in a conflict. The mutuality approach begins by honoring the needs of others as one's own, as an expression of social love. B. Broach your own affected needs Broach how the other side(s) in a conflict impact your needs. NEGATIVE; BAD NEWS Adversarialism tends to focus on desired behavior without addressing specific needs. Once trust is grounded in positive regard for the other's needs, the mutuality process invites positive regard for one's own affected needs. C. Continue building rapport Continue building rapport to establish intent to resolve needs and conflicts. POSITIVE; GOOD NEWS Adversarialism tends to alienate all sides from each other, and away from one's full potential with the onset of pragmatism creep The mutuality process incentivizes each side in conflict to remain engaged. Let's replace adversarialism with this mutuality process Instead of adversarialism's norm of provoking each other's defensiveness, or reinforcing each side's blind spots and undercutting each other's full human potential, this mutuality approach incentivizes each other's empathy, humility, integrity, forgiveness, and other noble qualities. Adversarialism risks, and often does, drag us down into lower levels of functioning. The mutuality process potentially builds up each other's wellness levels. While the adversarial approach offers relief from pain for the winning side, it tends to perpetuate pain by not fully addressing the winner's affected needs. This mutuality alternative gets to the bottom of each other's pain: each other's unresolved needs. Adversarialism fuels what can be called "pragmatic creep" where we drift from our full human potential into normalizing tolerable pathologies. Let this mutuality process get us back to our untapped potential to love each more. Examples Late payment notice Think of the message you get if falling behind on a utility bill. A. We value you as a loyal customer, and look forward to serving your needs into the future. B. According to our records, you are now 30 says behind on your monthly payment, which could disrupt your service. C. We trust you will attend promptly to this matter, and convey our gratitude if you have already sent your past due payment. Thank you. How I applied this mutuality approach Here's another example. One from my own life. A. I support the state's need to collect any overdue tuition bill unpaid from a delinquent student. B. The amount you claim I owe stems from the school's lawyer delaying approval of my internship placement, and not from my delinquency. C. I invite you to mutually solve this problem by honoring my due process rights. Thank you. Now you try it You can apply this mutuality process in a cover letter with your résumé, to address where you may not meet their preferred level of experience. A. I respect your wariness for hiring someone lacking the years of preferred experience. B. For the last three years, I have conducted thorough research into the best practices for this role. And believe I can offer vicarious experience on par with those already in this role. C. I look forward to demonstrating in an interview how I am the ideal match for this amazing role. Thank you. Need-response process The new professional service of need-response explores some innovative ways to instill this pioneering process. Notice of Responsive Intent (NOI) We start by informing authorities that we are introducing a fresh alternative to failing adversarialism. Memorandum of Responsive Understanding (MOU) Once mutual rapport beings, we negotiate the terms for identifying and addressing each other's needs. Need-Response Action (NRA) Need-response then lays out the steps we take to try to resolve our own needs while supporting the affected needs of others. Declaration of Liberty (DOL) If resistance emerges, we assert our dedication to prioritize the mutual resolution of needs. And declare ourselves ready to unilaterally address our needs wherever lacking cooperation. Work in progress This could take some time to develop. We welcome your input. Comment below what you would like to see in such a mutuality process. And where and how you would like to apply it in your life.

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

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

You can use the Estimated Innocence Form to complement those forms required by innocence litigators. You can ask your local innocence project of conviction integrity unit if they’re open to utilizing this either in lieu of their own forms, or more likely in addition to their case forms. Or use it to set up our alternative process in case the adversarial legal process fails you again. You will need a working copy of Excel for this. This pilot version uses an Excel spreadsheet to test its viability. After filling out one those long paper forms to interest an innocence project in your case, you repeatedly get turned down. You know how they favor cases that they can more easily get a reversal in court. Yours simply was not one of those low hanging fruit they prefer. You’re understandably disillusioned with the innocence movement . You must already be disillusioned with the adversarial judicial process . And with lawyers . Perhaps you’ve met lawyers also disillusioned with lawyering . Welcome to this refreshing alternative. CONTENTS Click on an item to go instantly to it below. Click on that header below to return instantly to this table of contents. Click on "CONTENTS" to get to the EIF download button at the bottom. Prove your innocence without lawyers Let's showcase your innocence Helping the judicial system produce more just outcomes What if the claimant cannot freely access the Internet? Your spreadsheet tabs Page by page instructions General instructions <> NOVI - p1 COVI (sideways) - p2 Estimated Innocence Report - p3 to p7 A. Case information - p8 to p11 B. Documentation for verification - p12 to p16 C.1 Common factors in wrongful convictions - p17 to p19 C.2 Evidentiary factors - p20 to p21 C.3 Investigative factors - p22 to p23 C.4 Complicating factors - p24 to p25 C.5 Claimant's demonstrable innocence - p26 to p28 C.6 Claimant's innocence recognized by others - p29 to p30 C.7 Other - p31 C.8 Process - p32 D. Requests and responses for exoneration help - p33 E. Collateral consequences of wrongful conviction - p34 to p35 F. Claimant narrative - p36 to p37 G. Compensation - p38 H. You're not alone - p39 Using your estimated innocence Review your results Save this version To save as a PDF Need help completing this form, or how to use it? Give us your feedback Follow its development on our podcast This guide applies best on a desktop computer or laptop. Some of this may not work as well on a mobile device. You can enlarge each page image below by clicking on it. Prove your innocence without lawyers The more your case mirrors those already exonerated, the higher your viability score of actual innocence. You no longer have to wait for lawyers to appreciate the strength of your innocence claim.   As you fill in the items calculating how much your case matches those already exonerated, you see your viability score increase on the right. Weak claim : If you get a raw score of 19 or less, this alternative may not help you much. Poor claim : If your raw score sits from 20 to 39, validating your claim could raise it significantly. Fair claim : If your raw score is 40 to 59, validating your claim could help raise it enough to question the reliability of the conviction. Good claim : If your raw score is 60 to 79, you're already on your way to cast sufficient doubt upon the reliaility of the conviction. Strong claim : If your raw score is 80 to 99, great! No one gets a perfect score of 100%. While the formula to arrive at this estimate is not yet scientifically sound, it provides a reliable starting point. Mostly by comparing cases. Its early use can help improve it, and eventually ground it in more scientifically valid measures. Let's showcase your innocence If your innocence claim scores high, consider letting us publicize your viable case of actual innocence. When ready to upload your completed spreadsheet form, click this "Publicize my viable innocence" button. Check the upper right corner of that "Unexonerated" page. Click the “Publicize my innocence” button you see there. Fill out the form that pops up. By providing your email address, we can converse how you want your "innocence profile" to appear, in case I have any questions for you. Eventually, you will be able to post your innocence profile without my involvement. Your early involvement can help me to better understand how to create a user entry process benefici8al to all claimants. Estimated Innocence is always free. But if you can donate anything to help me establish this pioneering alternative, then I will be encouraged, and grateful. Helping the judicial system produce more just outcomes Estimating the viability of each innocence claims provides the adversarial judicial process opportunity to improve their legitimacy. That’s one of many aims for this tool. Its purpose can potentially fulfill these dozen aims. Aim #1. To provide innocence claimants with an instant estimation of the viability level of their innocence claim. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, you must wait for the courts to categorize you as still guilty or innocent. They coerce you into accepting the same overgeneralizing binary that led to these problems in the first place. How can we solve our specific problems from this level of generalizing that created them?   The EIF replaces this judiciary’s sledgehammer approach with the scalpel of nuance. And replaces self-serving legal arguments prioritizing institutional needs with the need-serving specifics prioritizing the justice needs the judiciary supposedly exists to serve. In short, the EIF raises the standard of justice. Aim #2. To provide claimants with independent verification of their acclaimed innocence. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, you’re left trusting the same institution that created the problem in the first place. With its devotion to conviction finality and fear of setting bad legal precedents to ensure its own positions of social power, it fails to serve the deeper interests of justice all people need.   Instead of relying on the adversarial judiciary with its many conflicts of interest, the EIF relies on the public’s impartial interest in validating your innocence claim. With your permission to access your case details and available documentation, select members of the public can determine likely innocence without fear of repercussions to their social status. Aim #3. To provide an alternative to the slow, resistant adversarial process weighed down with conflicts of interest. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, you typically must wait years and years. And repeated disappointments. You often slide into despair, and risk depression. You understandably can become disillusioned with the whole judicial process.   The EIF bypasses the snail-paced judiciary. By quickly ascertaining likely innocence, it either complements or competes with the judicial process. Where welcomed to support the interests of justice and public safety from a critical perspective, it can complement the judiciary. Where the judiciary resists critique and persists in error, it competes for legitimacy in serving justice needs. Starting with your affected justice needs. Aim #4. To springboard investigations into overlooked justice needs, such as identifying the actual perpetrator. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, criminal investigations occur mostly behind closed doors. Its opacity covers the frequent problem of investigative tunnel vision, confirmation bias, and untenable theories of guilt. Improper investigation resulting in wrongful convictions typically allows the actual violent perpetrator to violate others with impunity.   The EIF could potentially aid investigators in identifying patterns of crime resulting from locking up the wrong person. Sometimes the claimant has a better idea who the actual perpetrator than investigators trying to take shortcuts with people’s lives (both the accused and accuser). Such data provides better direction for solving crime than untested gut reactions of police and prosecutors who feel pressured to quickly close a case. Aim #5. To improve the efficiency of innocence projects, and others in the innocence movement, to process numerous innocence claims. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, each innocence project provides claimants with their own particular form. Some commonality exists between them. But these paper forms risk overlooking the nuances in your particular situation. They don’t know what they don’t know, and may never think to ask you critical bits of information that could make a world of difference.   The EIF proposes a uniformity of data collection. And to keep that information transparent to the public. It also incentivizes innocence projects to produce results more promptly, or risk being embarrassed by members of the public who outperform their investigations. The EIF empowers claimants and their supporters to competes with the inefficient legal-judicial approach of innocence projects, which still do not process enough claims to make a significant dent in the crisis of wrongful convictions. Aim #6. To increase the transparency of the process to identify and clear innocent prisoners and other wrongly convicted. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, you are generally kept in the dark. If fortunate enough to have a legal team working on your case, you still must wait weeks and months to hear if anything happened in the courts. And the news is not always pleasant.   The EIF keeps the process in the open. Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant. Once a claim is diligently verified with a degree of certainty, and the outcome affirms innocence, the slow legal process can either catch up or shut up. If this alternative exposes thousands and thousands of actually innocent prisoners, any many more in the general public stuck in second class citizenship, the social pressure can become immense. The innocence movement and courts could then finally “find” the resources it now claims it does not have to review every viable claim, and to clear wrongful convictions faster than they are produced. Aim #7. To raise the standard of justice from a failed win-lose binary to identifying degrees of certainty in adjudicated outcomes. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, you are forced to accept the institutional binary of guilt-or-innocence. You personally know reality is more nuanced than such oversimplified binaries. You know reality operates in matters of degrees, not in simple black-and-white generalizations.   The EIF raises the standard of justice by checking for the degree of certainty in each conviction. Imagine if the original investigation began with the discipline of verifying the degree of certainty in the original theory of guilt. You may not have been wrongly convicted if investigators were held to such a higher standard of justice. You may now demonstrate a higher justice standard in how you can be more responsive to the justice needs of the complainants than the police and prosecutors who objectified them for their own judiciary process ends. Aim #8. To identify and address all affected needs impacted by the adversarial criminal judicial process. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, the courts impose a win-lose outcome on each case. Is it really justice when one side gains the resources to win a court battle with better persuasion over a jury? Or do we settle for this barbaric slugfest because we cannot envision the higher justice of something like the EIF?   The EIF rises above such adversarial justice to identify and respond to all the affected needs in an adjudicated case. It does not rest until all the personal justice needs are met. And it doesn’t accept the institutional needs of the judiciary to be more important than the justice needs the judiciary exists to serve. For example, the institutional need for ‘conviction finality’ cannot be accepted as higher than actually impacted justice needs. That’s unacceptably backwards.Aim #9. To identify the scope of the unexonerated problem to improve funding revenues for those still not keep pace in addressing the full problem. Aim #9. To identify the scope of the unexonerated problem to improve funding revenues for those still not keep pace in addressing the full problem. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, innocence movements and conviction integrity units tend to wander in the political dark. Without the data the EIF could make public, many political leaders (both Democrat and Republican) remain in denial to the scope of this problem.   The EIF-produced data can illuminate the scope of the need. Funding sources could then catch up with this immense need. Once they realize the amount necessary to compensate each potential exoneree, well, let’s say this has gotta scare the bejeezus out of them. Better to resolve this sooner than later.   By the way, claimants own their own data. Unlike all the popular social media platforms, claimants are to receive direct compensation for any use of their private case data. If this gets challenged in the courts where laws prohibit profiting from one’s alleged crime, this process has another tool called “legitimacy quality” that compels them to link each law and its interpretation to each resolved need. This process asserts how resolved needs sits at a higher authority than arbitrary law enforcement, and backs this with empirical data. There are more options after that, but I digress. Aim #10. To collect data to identify patterns contributing to wrongful convictions, that can then be used to inform relevant policies. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, researchers struggle to find data to identify wrongful conviction contributors. Sample sizes typically remain small. Statistically, any sample under 200 cannot create reliable conclusions. So we soldier on with bad policies on the books. The history of wrongful convictions then continues to repeat itself again and again.   The EIF-produce data can help researchers identify specific trends in specific jurisdictions, then address these locally. For example, a high volume of Brady violations in one DA could receive a specific correction than another DA relying on a corrupted state forensic science lab.   This can offer a sense of meaning for innocence claimants who had to grieve many losses because of the wrongful conviction. Knowing their case data can help others avoid a similar tragedy, they can more easily adjust to the painful losses caused by the miscarriage of justice. Of course, this can never excuse the wrongdoing among DAs and others contributing to wrongful convictions. Aim #11. To enforce accountability for public safety outcomes and impacts with a more rigorously disciplined process. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, or something like it, the judiciary and law enforcement rely heavily on oversimplified generalizations. For example, police rely on their “good-guy/bad-guy” binary to make snap decisions in the field when their lives could be at risk. But this binary risks distorting their perception of us. Without the level discipline enforced in other fields, these unchecked generalizations actually risk undermining public safety.   The EIF is based on a process called ‘need-response’ that rigorously identifies and addresses each impacted need. It exists independent of the judiciary and law enforcement, so remains removed from its conflicts of interest. It recognizes that no one sits above the law, but insists that no law sits above the needs for which the law exists to serve. With scientific vigor, it dares to hold all institutions (like law enforcement and the judiciary) accountable to the needs they exist to serve. Aim #12. To correct overemphasis upon individuals by balancing focus between violent individuals and systems of violence. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, it’s easy to assume ‘justice’ is basically holding violent individuals in custody to prevent them from acting out violently against others. This tradition stems largely from the Western value of individualism. Culturally, we impose a different standard against vulnerable individuals than we do against better resourced entities. This inherent injustice in the name of justice is arguably no justice at all.   Progressives counter with greater focus on social justice and racial justice. Conservatives demand safer streets. Political leaders collude with judicial leaders to exploit the holes in each side’s generalizations. Over-adjudication and wrongful convictions easily occur from this bipartisan pact. Liberals insisting on an expanded government role collude with conservatives insisting on individual responsibility for personal choices. While two wrongs don’t make a right, sometimes they make a law.   The EIF balances both sides with relevant specifics, to resolve justice needs and not simply serve judicial institutions trying to ease pain on one side by imposing pain on the other side. Justice is more than faulting deeds; there can be no justice without resolving underlying needs. I go into further detail about this in a book I am writing called “You NEED This: Introducing anankelogy as the study of need.” I expect it to have it published later this year. We brace ourselves for possible resistance to this new way of addressing justice needs. We can send our open letter to all judicial officials inviting their adoption of this more effective alternative to their black-and-white myopic approach. And we can send our open letter to all innocence litigators serving innocence projects and conviction integrity units. We then assess their responsiveness to this proposed improvement. They can either engage us to improve just outcomes, or risk being left behind. What if the claimant cannot freely access the Internet? Designated proxy . Any innocence claimant still under state custody, and unable to access the Internet, will have to assign someone they can trust to serve as their proxy. You can think of this as granting someone the power of attorney. Download this "Proxy Designation Form - innocence profiles" Word document. Upload the completed and signed when uploading the completed EIF on the Unexonerated page. Paper form of the EIF . What if the innocence claimant remains under state custody and denied adequate access to the Internet? Then have someone they trust who does have access to this online form to first send them this paper form. Have the claimant fill out as much as they can, then mail the paper form back to you. Then you or someone the claimant trusts can transcribe the info into the spreadsheet form.  Your spreadsheet tabs The spreadsheet pilot includes six tabs. The instructions below apply to the first tab, which opens by default. EIF draft E01 : the full Estimated Innocence Form, plus the Using your Estimated Innocence section. EIF E01 sample : the full Estimated Innocence Form filled in by the tool’s creator, to demonstrate how it can be used. EIF E01 NOVI : Notification of Verifiable Innocence to summarize the findings in one page. EIF E01 COVI : Certificate of Verifiable Innocence, more easily viewed and to print. EIF E01 EIR : Estimated Innocence Report, more easily shared with others. EIF E01 CQR : Conviction Quality Report, to send to innocent litigators as a helpful summary of what they may need to find. Page by page instructions Click on any page images below to zoom in and see it in detail. The form spans from page 8 to page 39. The portions for calculating the viability of innocence span from page 12 through page 32. Click on the headers highlighted in green to go to the table of contents above. Click on the page number or pages range to return here. General Instructions <> NOVI - p1 When first opening the document, you see its GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. After filling out the form below, this changes to a Notification of Veerifiable Innocence, or NOVI for short. This is also available as a separate tab. The NOVI tab. COVI (sideways) - p2 This also changes after you complete the form. Find the horizontal version in the COVI tab. You can use either version Estimated Innocence Report - p3 to p7 Before using this form, you should see a raw score and an adjusted score at the top, both at zero. You don't fill in any of the blanks here. Scroll down to page six to start using this form. After you finish filling in the data below, these first five pages become your summary report of viable innocence. Navigation The seventh page provides you a navigation menu. Click on the letter in the left column to instantly go to that page. For example, click on "C.2" to go immediately to "Evidentiary factors" below. Return to this menu line by clicking the "C.2" in that page's header. Clicking on any page header's title returns you to top of the document. Other navigation links are availble. Look for arrows to take you quickly back and forth between these display pages and the entry fields below. This is how this first first section appears before you start filling in the form. SAMPLE "EIR" pp 3 - 7 A. Case information - p8 to p11 Here is where you spill the beans. Fill in the fields to showcase the basic material of your case. Provide as much detail as you can.   You likely have not thought about these details in a while. Some of this stuff likely brings up a lot of pain, which you may prefer to just forget. But your pain is not the problem  as much as this persisting threat your pain keeps warning you about.   We suggest you process these details with a little help from a friend. Perhaps a family member. Or a counselor. Once we credential need-responders , we could potentially serve you as a source of emotional support.   If filling out the paper form  while sitting in a prison cell, you understandably cannot process each point with your loved one in the free world. Do what you can and jot down some of your painful feelings coursing through you.   “Disturbing. Frustrating. WTF? Should never have happened that way!” Then find some way to debrief these emotions. Perhaps during your next visit. Or in a letter.   If transcribing this info from your incarcerated loved one, you too may find this emotionally taxing. You may feel shocked by some of it. Or remember some details differently.   Need-response can help build your resilience to endure emotional pain. Let’s work together to turn these challenges into opportunities for growth and redemption, on our way toward exoneration. SAMPLE Case Information pp 8 - 11 Now onto helping to prove your innocence believability. B. Documentation for verification - p12 to p16 This section helps you improve the veracity of your innocence claim with available documentation of 14 relevant items. Respond only to the elements relevant to this innocence claim. For each of these 14 items, select from the dropdown list the level of availability for that item. By URL [entered into the field] below, searchable text (best) By URL below, audio/visual (great) By URL below, image only (good) By email below (fair) Not at this time (poor) Not applicable (okay)   You will immediately see a percentage number to the right. This number will steadily climb as you add relevant elements as you go do down the form.   The single-line white field is for adding any URL links for others to check the available document. The larger white field serves as optional space for including any contextual information. Simply skip it if you don’t need to explain anything to those who may later help verify your innocence claim.   After selecting a dropdown list level of verification availability, you will see added text below in purple: “SUPPORTER REVIEW: Prepare for Independent Verifier”.   If you know the number of pages for the document, please include that count in the “How many pages?” field on the left. The page count helps to estimate how long it may take to go through it to verify the innocence claim, which you see at the right.   If the availability level includes a URL, select if that URL works from the dropdown listed provided in the middle. link does not work link works poorly link works, item(s) not found link works, all item(s) found other (describe in box above)   Simply skip each item not relevant to your case. Hopefully you can support your innocence claim with available documents. This raises your “adjusted score”. Think of the raw score as your own assertion. And the adjusted score verifying your assertions.   If you do not have access to your trial transcripts or case documents, that could undermine improving your adjusted score . We will then lean into your raw score .   Page 12 1. Trial transcripts . If you can provide access to your trial transcripts, this goes a long way to independently validate your asserted innocence. Even if no one invests the time to go through them, simply making them transparently available boosts your credibility. 2. Discovery documents . Like the search warrant, officer notes, and lab reports.Include as many as you have available. Especially if covering your innocence claim. For example, lab reports if improper forensics is one of your relevant elements selected in the next section. 3. Other trial related documents . Like trial motions.  Page 13 4. Police interrogation . If relevant, include any transcript of any interrogation. If not recorded, or if no transcript is available and such an interrogation occurred, mention this in the large white field. 5. Any new trial motion . If your defense counsel filed a motion for a new trial, or any kind of similar motion (e.g., motion to suppress inadmissible evidence), include these as well. 6. Presentence Investigation Report . Your PSI could help give a summary of your case through the lens of the PSI writer. Especially if sympathetic to your innocence claim.  Page 14 7. Appellate brief . Include your appellate brief, assuming you have one. 8. Appellate opinion . Include the appellate court’s ruling. Whether published or not. 9. Post-appellate remedies sought . Include any other attempts to appeal the conviction in the appellate process. For example, a 1983 motion or habeas corpus.  Page 15 10. Innocence project communication . Include any letters of correspondence with any innocence projects, conviction integrity unit, journalism students, activist organizations, and the like. 11. Professional supporters . Include any documentation you have of cultural and civic leaders expressing belief in your innocence. For example, a letter from the judge, or from a local reporter or media personality. 12. Media interest and coverage . Include any correspondence you received showing some interest in your case from any CIU or CRU. Whether or not they agreed to review your case. Page 16 13. Other documentation . Include any document supporting your innocence not mentioned above. For example, letters of support recommending leniency by the sentencing judge. 14. Other supportive material (e.g., alibi affidavit ). This one tries to cover anything overlooked, and turn over every stone left unturned. To squeeze every opportunity to demonstrate your innocence. Prep to-do list . To the left of “verification step”, select from the dropdown list the most relevant option. Need help scanning my case documents Need help counting pages of case documents Need help uploading case documents Need help checking if URL works Need help identifying support in case documents Need help hiring independent verifiers Need help verifying claim using case documents Need help accreditation on claim verification   You will then see just above it a percentage identifying your progress verifying your claim. Try not to worry now if that number is low. This can all be addressed later, if detractors insist you back up your innocence claim. For now, you can leave all three Prep to-do list  items at their default setting of “ not started ” yet.   The idea for this section is to give your supporters something they can actively do to support your innocence claim, and help you get closer to being exonerated. SAMPLE Documentation for verification pp 12 - 16 Now onto identifying wrongful conviction factors. C.1 Common factors in wrongful convictions - p17 to p19   Page 17 15. Eyewitness Misidentification . Include if your among the 70% of cases exonerated with DNA, where eyewitness misidentification played a key role. Was there a Rashomon effect , where multiple witnesses provided contradictory details of the same event? 16. False Confessions or Admissions . Were you coerced into implicating yourself, or pressured to agree to a plea deal under threat of a long prison sentence? Were you subjected to the Reid technique  where the “good cop” works off the angry “bad cop?” during an interrogation, to coax you into admitting guilt.  Page 18 17. Government Misconduct . Did any police officer or law enforcement official take any illegal shortcuts? Did they seem to intentionally alter evidence? Did the prosecutor withhold any potentially exculpatory evidence during discovery (i.e., a Brady violation)? 18. Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science . Was your wrongful conviction based on any discredited forensic science? Did the expert testimony misrepresent the data, in a way favoring the prosecutor’s theory of guilt? Did the trial judge allow expert testimony that failed either the Frye  standard or Daubert standard , especially if never raised in a motion motion or included in an appellate brief?   Page 19 19. Jail Informant . Did some from your jail cell come forward claiming you implicated yourself? Was that informant apparently granted an easier sentence? Did the authorities incentivize your codefendant(s) to testify against you? 20. Inadequate Defense . Were you assigned a court appointed attorney who did not believe in your innocence? Or didn’t seem to care? Was that defense council overburdened with too many cases to adequately represent yours?   With each of these, remember to select from the dropdown list how much it applies to your innocence claim. SAMPLE Common factors in wrongful convictions pp 17 - 19 C.2 Evidentiary factors - p20 to p21   Page 20 21. Evidence yet to be DNA tested . Mention any evidence that was never tested for DNA. You could include here if you have approached an innocence project about untested DNA in your case, and they declined to pursue it. If so, explain why. 22. Non-DNA evidence yet to be considered . Include any possible evidence apart from DNA that could point to your innocence, but was not addressed prior to your wrongful conviction. 23. Exculpatory evidence exists . Include anything that could point to your innocence. You could mention why this wasn’t addressed at trial, or by your defense counsel.  Page 21 24. Conviction not corroborated by evidence . Include if your conviction was based primarily or exclusively on belief? Such as the testimony of an unreliable eyewitness. Include the use of their forensic evidence which failed to support their claims. 25. Conviction based on irrational theory of guilt . Include if the conviction is based on an implausible chain of events. Point out any absurdities, any contradictions, and any scientifically invalid assumptions built into the prosecution of your case. 26. No actual crime . Include if no actual crime occurred. For example, a fire that was not arson as they believed. Or “shaken baby syndrome” for a child who died from an undiagnosed medical condition. Again, state the degree each applicable element applied, using the dropdown list of options. SAMPLE Evidentiary factors pp 20 - 21 C.3 Investigative factors - p22 to p23   Page 22 27. Law enforcement tunnel vision . Include if law enforcement investigators zeroed in a narrow theory of guilt, then appeared to find evidence for it. Include any apparent confirmation bias by the prosecutor and/or police investigators. 28. Law enforcement noble cause corruption . Include any law enforcement shortcuts they rationalize as essential. Document any expressions heard or read where law enforcement officials rationalized their questionable behavior as necessary. 29. Complainant retraction . Include if any of the accusers retracted their accusation, either in whole or in part. Mention if characterized by law enforcement as less believable than the initial allegation, which can expose their confirmation bias.  Page 23 30. Confession from actual perpetrator . Include if anyone came forward to admit being the actual offender. When did they come forward? How was their admission treated by law enforcement? 31. Another person implicated in the crime . Include if anyone was independently identified as the actual perpetrator. Was this identification before or after the wrongful conviction? How did law enforcement treat this finding? 32. Conviction based upon outmoded law/beliefs . Include if law enforcement or the prosecutor’s office acted upon unfounded assumptions about you. Such as you identification with a marginalized group. Contrast how such views were more widely accepted than now. Identify its degree of relevance in the dropdown list for each item. SAMPLE Investigative factors pp 22 - 23 C.4 Complicating factors - p24 to p25   Page 24 33. Presenting conflict of interest . Identify any apparent conflicts of interest presented by anyone in law enforcement. Was the judge up for reelection? Did the prosecutor go out of their way to appear tough on crime? Was any negative coverage by a reporter apparently trying to provoke audience fears primarily to gain views? 34. Perjured testimony or false accusation . Include if any of the prosecutor’s witnesses appear to be coached. Or incentivized. Or if any witness could be involved in the crime, and whose testimony tried to distract attention away from them. 35. Moral panic . Include if your arrest, detention and trial occurred in the context of a moral panic . For example, mention if caught up on the Satanic panic  of the past few decades. Or if accused as a child molester because you worked as a daycare center in the late 1980s or 90s .  Page 25 36. Disparate impact . Mention if you are in a population frequently targeted by law enforcement. Include how many times you were stopped and perhaps frisked by police without cause. 37. Law enforcement prejudice . Did law enforcement convey any sentiment that you must be guilty of something solely on their perceptions? Did law enforcement use your natural defensiveness to their aggressive tactics as grounds to believe you must be a violent person? 38. Trial by media . Any sensational coverage of the case? Was news media present during the trial? Did their coverage favor the prosecution? Did sympathy for any victim overshadow reasonable doubts about you as the actual perpetrator?   Reminder: Include the degree of relevance in the dropdown list for each relevant factor. SAMPLE Complicating factors pp 24 - 25 Now onto idenifying the claimant's demonstrable innocence. C.5 Claimant's demonstrable innocence - p26 to p28 Page 26 39. Pled not guilty . Include if you pled not guilty and committed yourself to never taking any plea agreement. Mention any pressures to admit guilt that you consistently resisted. 40. Alford plea . Include if you took an Alford plea , or pled no contest. Explain why. Mention any pressures you were under, such as from family members desperate for you to come home as early as possible. 41. Duration of innocence claim . Mention how long you have maintained your innocence. Especially if you have always claimed to be innocent after many years while incarcerated, even at the risk of being denied parole.  Page 27 42. Respect for crime victim(s) . Identify how you positively regard the complainant(s). Mention how you never presented any threat to them, or ever had any motive to do them any harm. 43. Positive institutional record . Use your behavioral record under custody to challenge their mischaracterization of you. 44. No criminal history . Include if you remained free of any criminal activity before and/or after.  Page 28 45. Parole denial from maintaining innocence . Include how many times you were denied parole for “lack of remorse”.   Again, reminding you to check how much each of these applied to your case. SAMPLE Claimant's demonstrable innocence pp 26 - 28 Now onto recognizing the claimant's socially affirmed innocence. C.6 Claimant's innocence recognized by others - p29 to p30   Page 29 46. Any relief on appeal . Add any favorable relief you received from the Appellate Panel or any other step in the appellate process. Was your sentence reduced? Was any charge thrown out? 47. Supporters . Start creating a list of anyone who conveyed any support for your innocence. The more names you can list, along with current contact info, the better prepared you will be to build growing support for your innocence. 48. Affidavits . Include any signed affidavits vouching for your alibi. Or for anything pointing to your innocence, whether mentioned in your trial or not.  Page 30 49. Judge support . Add any judge’s name who either expressed some doubt in an eyewitness or complaint’s claims, or who later expressed vehement support of your obvious innocence. 50. Prosecutor support . Include if any prosecutor came forward to assert your innocence, or at least expressed doubt in your alleged guilt. 51. Defense counsel support . Mention how much your defense counsel believed in your innocence. Add if they went out of their way to persuade the jury or bench trial judge of your innocence. 52. Influential support . Include any cultural leaders who backed up your innocence. This could include political leaders, faith leaders, company owners or nonprofit leaders. SAMPLE Claimant's innocence recognized by others pp 29 - 30 If this form missed anything, now is the time to mention it. C.7 Other - p 31   Page 31 53. Any other relevant items . This form may have overlooked a critical factor. Here is where you include anything this form neglected to consider. For ideas what you could include not mentioned above, go to the last page and check out the “ Innocence Checklist ” by Dr. Carrie Leonetti. You help improve this tool by adding your own unique contributing factor here. You’re still checking the relevance level and how a relevant element can be verified, right? SAMPLE Other p 31 C.8 Process - p32   Page 32 54. Indictment changed . Mention if the prosecutor adjusted the original charges or indictment for apparent lack of evidence, or for any other reason. 55. Plea deal turned down . Mention how many times you were offered a deal from the prosecutor, and turned it down to insist on your full innocence. 56. Asserted right to trial . Mention of you asserted your right to challenge all the charges in a trial. Include any pressures from the prosecutor to take a plea bargain to avoid a trial. 57. Discovery with exculpatory evidence . Include any evidence declared in discovery that you identify as exculpatory, even if the prosecutor or others did not recognize it as such. 58. Exculpatory evidence not provided in discovery .Also include any evidence you may be aware of that could point to your innocence, but was not included in any discovery document. This concludes entries used for calculating the viability of your innocence. That covers the “what” of your overlooked innocence. Next, you declare “why” your exoneration is so vital. SAMPLE Process p 32 Now you rate the innocence options who seem to be serving the law more than serving you. Need-response features this skill to realistically assess the responsiveness of those we come to vulnerably depend upon. We must assess those who serve as the last or only option to address our affected inflexible needs. Such as your need for public recognition of your innocence, with or without an exoneration from the adversarial system that created it. D. Requests and responses for exoneration help - p3 3 For items 59, 60 and 61, you assess how satisfied you are with each innocence entity that you have encountered. You then asses how much you still trust that innocence entity. Like reviewing a business on Yelp, you assess their level of legitimacy.   Click in the white field to the right of “Satisfaction level:”. Then click on the arrow pointing down at the right end of this field. A list of options appears. Select your satisfaction level using one of those option from this dropdown list. Do the same with the “Trust level:” field.   Item 62 has you assessing the innocence movement as a whole. The dropdown list provides you a different set of options to rate their satisfaction and trust levels. Your critique of the innocence movement here can demonstrate the need for our need-responsive alternative.   Next, identify what you specifically need from the innocence movement. With the dropdown list, you indicate if that need for you is a low priority or a very high priority. This can improve your rapport with them, and improve their rapport with you and other innocence claimants.   Finally, report how this continuing wrongful conviction impacts you and your loved ones. Each of these eight items includes its own dropdown list of options. (NOTE: The updated version of this tool will report these in a new section after the CQR below.)   Page 33 59. Innocence Project . This gives you the option to select a specific innocence project in your state, assuming you did not seek help from one outside of your state. Click on “Innocence Project” to see the list of innocence projects in your state. The select the one that applies. All may apply, but select the one you prefer to rate right now. 60. District attorney . This also may list the prosecutors in your state. You can simple leave the “District attorney” default to keep it simple. This item speaks to their conviction integrity unit. Rate your satisfaction level and trust level, as you did above. 61. Other sources of legal assistance . Use this if you hired your own lawyer, or relied on journalism students, or reached out to a nonprofit organization offering legal services. If applicable, rate their satisfaction and trust levels. 62. Innocence movement . Assess the legitimacy of the current innocence movement as a whole. How content are you with the movement? Do you still trust the movement as the only show in town, or are you open to trying an alternative not focused on adversarial law?   Now let’s get to specifics. What do you seek from the innocence movement? Using the dropdown list, rate how importance that item is to you right now. This may help prioritize resources to work toward what you need the most. >  exoneration >  financial support for legal costs >  expunged record >  removal of all collateral consequences >  compensation >  apology >  OTHER: ______________ 63. Impact on claimant   (legitimacy of exclusionary legal-judicial process) . What are some specific impacts on the claimant after trusting the adversarial judicial process? 1.  reason for being denied review in the past 2.  revisiting case risks retraumatization 3.  depression level from legal-judicial process as only option 4.  anxiety from relying on same process creating error 5.  anxiety from slowness of legal-judicial process 6.  anxiety from prosecutor's power to reinforce error 7.  anxiety from having little to no control over process 8.  disillusionment with legal-judicial process   If the adversarial judicial process repeatedly fails to serve your inflexible need for justice, then consider the nonadversarial alternative of need-response. Consider if Exoneration Services can deliver to you the exoneration your life requires. SAMPLE Requests and responses for exoneration help p 33 How has this wrongful conviction damaged your life, and the life of your innocent loved ones? Next, we explore the continuing consequences you suffer from the state neglecting your innocence. E. Collateral consequences of wrongful conviction - p34 to p35   Page 34 Each map image takes you to an online site that lists various consequences of a conviction. National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction National maps on expungement, pardoning, and voting rights restoration Once at the site, click on their map to look at your state’s specific statues limiting your rights. This adds reasons for the innocence movement to address your affected needs. 64. Collateral consequences impacting claimant . Using the provided dropdown list, select in the left column how each items applies. Then using the provided dropdown list, mark on the right the time of its impact—before, during, or after incarceration. 1 ) Conviction posted online 2 ) Custody reimbursement 3 ) Education discrimination 4 ) Employment discrimination 5 ) Exempt from public assistance 6 ) Exempt from student financial aid 7 ) Health care discrimination 8 ) Housing discrimination 9 ) Loss of government benefits 10 ) Loss of gun rights 11 ) Loss of parental rights 12 ) Loss of vote 13 ) Loss or denial of professional license 14 ) Prevented from seeing family 15 ) Prevented from visiting prisoners 16 ) Restitution to alleged victims 17 ) Restricted movement 18 ) Sex offender registry 19 ) Workplace discrimination 20 ) Other (details in box below)   Use the large white field at the bottom of page 35 to include any consequence not listed above.  Page 35 65. Collateral consequence impacting others in claimant's life . Using the provided dropdown list, select in the left column if it applies and how.       >  not applicable       >  temporary       >  lasting       >  permanent  Then using the provided dropdown lists on the right, mark who is most impacted by that consequence of the wrongful conviction. impacting everyone I know impacting close friend(s) impacting close friends & family impacting only family members impacting only my (then) partner impacting (then) partner & kids impacting only my child(ren) impacting only my grandchild(ren)   Select who is impacted for each relevant item listed here. 1 ) anxiety 2 ) costs to contact while in prison 3 ) depression 4 ) divorce 5 ) housing instability 6 ) loss of companionship 7 ) loss of parent during upbringing 8 ) loss of stable income 9 ) loss of emotional support 10 ) poverty 11 ) stigma 12 ) targeted by bullies   Use the white field below item 65 to include any impacts not listed above.   66. Current neglected needs due to these collateral consequences . Identify how challenging the wrongful conviction has been to each of the first six items. Then identify how much you aspire to improve these listed areas impacted by the wrongful conviction.   Challenging 1 ) economic 2 ) physical health 3 ) mental health 4 ) relationships 5 ) will-to-live 6 ) OTHER: ______________________________________   Aspiring 7 ) income independence 8 ) maintaining healthy lifestyle 9 ) overcoming depression & anxiety 10 ) restoring family ties 11 ) helping others similarly situated 12 ) OTHER: ______________________________________   These lists likely overlooked something impacted in your life. Use the white field at the bottom of page 35 to add any other wrongful conviction challenge or aspiration.   As more claimants use this form, the more data we can present to the innocence movement and to the criminal judicial system to spotlight our neglected needs. SAMPLE Collateral consequences of wrongful conviction pp 34 - 35 F. Claimant narrative - p36 to p3 7 Here is where the claimant puts in their own words what they claim happened. Provide helpful context for the wrongful conviction. This appears in what others see first, so give it your best.   This section wraps up the form. The remainder is for helping you, the claimant (and proxy), to find the support you need to overcome this injustice. Keep going, you're almost there!   Page 36 67. Claim Synopsis . In two sentences or less, grab the reader’s attention with a tearjerking synopsis of the innocence claim. This text appears in the executive summary at the top. 68. Claim highlights . List eye grabbing highlights of claim, with as few words as possible. Replace each example with something from your own case. Up to ten highlights. 69. Flipside . For a balanced view, acknowledge what could be seen as the worst in the case. Nullify criticism by getting it out of the way. Demonstrate your integrity, your honest and humility. Defy the stereotypes about those claiming to be innocent. Because we are.   Think of this like the job interview question: “Tell me your greatest weakness.” That question builds trust by humbly admitting human imperfection. But the quicker the answer segues into the positivity of progress in that area, the better. Apply that to your prison experience.   So conclude your admitted weak spot on a positive note. For example, you could admit that you were obnoxious back when you were arrested. But then took the opportunity to face the worst of what life could throw at you to improve your moral character. How many guilty felons can express such honesty and demonstrate growth from the harshest of experiences?  Page 37 70. Claim Summary . Summarize the innocence claim—with an eye for short attention spans. Add some context to the synopsis above. Provoke the reader's curiosity and interest to discover more.   Invite your closest supporter(s) to give you helpful feedback. Keep it engaging. Leave out any tone of blame. Describe what occurred without suggesting what anyone should do about it. Except close with a call-to-action. What can those moved by your words do to support you?   Follow this format to standardize your summary. The more the reader can follow your words, the more likely they will read it to the end. The more engaging your narrative, the more support your bound to attract by sticking with this simple formula.   On [INCIDENT DATE], [CLAIMANT] [HOW INCIDENT OCCURRED]. [CONTEXT]. Do your best to describe the facts without vilifying anyone. Let the reader decide. Close with a call-to-action [CTA], what you are asking the engaged reader to do. Look through the example to get some ideas. 2,500-character limit .   Be free to rewrite and rewrite your early drafts. Polish this narrative as best as you can. Or get another to write it for you. Let your innocence shine for all to see! SAMPLE Claimant narrative pp 36 - 37 G. Compensation - p38   Page 38 Since creating this tool, more states have passed legislation to compensate those exonerated. And the statute may not indicate how difficult it can actually be to receive just compensation.   For more current information about your relevant state, use a search engine online.   One reason for including this section is to appreciate the stakes involved when recognizing your innocence. When considering the estimates on the next page for how many could potentially be eligible for compensation, you might better appreciate the politics of stalling. SAMPLE Compensation p 38 H. You're not alone - p39 A growing list of academic articles tries to estimate just how many of us are wrongly convicted. The exact number is not knowable by current methods. Various researchers use various methods to give us a rough idea. First, the researcher must define who is, and who is not, wrongly convicted. More recent estimates narrow that definition to actual innocence and not merely on a legal technicality . Which refers to those who played no role in the identified crime. Researchers using a broad definition tend to come up with larger percentage rates of wrongful convictions than those using a narrower definition. The research methods used by those working withing the judicial system tend to come up with much smaller rates. They understandably are more invested in avoiding the opposite risk of wrongful acquittals.   Page 39 This optional form allows you to see where you fit into the scope of this problem.   First, go to the National Registry of Exonerations (which recently migrated to a new website ). Find their latest total of exonerations (top left of most of their pages). Enter that figure in the first field.   In the next field, select the relevant population from the dropdown list. Felony population Ex-prisoner population Custody population (includes all those on parole and probation) Prison population (both state and federal) Registered sex offenders   Then check the results for each estimated rate below. Remember, these are merely estimates. For a more thorough exploration of these wrongful conviction rate, click the image to the right. In this document, I unpack each of these estimated rates.   I identify the professional role of the researcher. Then give their definition of a wrongful conviction. I also summarize their research methods. Academics working within the judicial system understandably estimate lower rates. Criminologists and others outside of the judicial system and peering tend to find higher rates.   Higher rates also stem from a broader definition of wrongful conviction. Such as a legal technicality, which can include those guilty of lesser offenses.   More recent research narrows the definition of a wrongful conviction to “ actual innocence ” or “factual innocence.” This effectively excludes the wrongly convicted of one charge while admittedly guilty of a different or lesser offense.   More research has emerged since its publication in 2021. You can search online to get an update, if you prefer. Enter in your search engine of choice: academic research estimating   rates of wrongful conviction . While the exact number eludes us, the scope of the problem of wrongly convicted innocence becomes clear. Starting with Zalman (#4), you get a number into the tens of thousands. The widely accepted rate of 5% results in 100,000 innocent persons in prison!   Now you do the math: estimated total# — the registry total# = holy crapola!!!   You can quickly appreciate why we need something like the Estimated Innocence Form, to shine a light upon this underserved problem. You can quickly draw the same conclusion as Samuel Gross of the National Exoneration Registry, back in 2015: “ We know without doubt that the vast majority of innocent defendants who are 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 . At need-response, we find this unacceptable! SAMPLE You're not alone p 39 With your estimated viability of actual innocence, you can now hold the adversarial legal process to a higher degree of accountability for your underserved justice needs. “Accountability—the sense that one’s actions are personally identifiable and subject to the evaluation of others—often acts as a constraint on unchecked power. Individuals in power who know they will be held accountable are more likely to consider social consequences and take others’ interests into account.” ( Keltner, et al., 2003 ) end of page by page instructions That concludes the instructions for filling out the form. Using your Estimated Innocence This sums up the standard half of the Estimated Innocence Form. The remaining pages provide a starting point for those requiring options to go beyond adversarial legalism . They could be used if you upgrade to the Responsive Innocence option.   The above instructions provide you with minimal guidance for how you might want to apply your resulting raw score. Its broader application is still evolving. We’re exploring how to use it during each step of what we call the re-adjudication process . Think of your viable innocence score as the opening for a fresh approach toward serving the needs of justice. Three avenues now open up to you. You’re likely familiar with the strictly adversarial judicial process. Consider two other paths we can carve out for you. 1. Estimated Innocence . You keep relying on the adversarial judicial process to someday lead you to an official exoneration. You keep going it alone. After all, until need-response  takes off as a viable alternative, official court exoneration is the only game in town. 2. Responsive Innocence . You parallel whatever is left of your reliance upon the adversarial process with our pioneering mutuality process . This introduces you to our “ public exoneration ” alternative, which taps into the public’s disillusionment with many of our institutions. [STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT, AND YOU CAN HELP TEST IT] 3. Honored Innocence . You prioritize our mutuality alternative to properly resolve needs, challenging the adversarial system to be as responsive. This option features “public exoneration” that invites the public to scrutinize the adversarial legalism also harming them. [STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT, AND YOU CAN HELP TEST IT]   All three fall under the umbrella of our Exoneration Services , still in development.   Now let's review the results. Review your results After filling in each relevant field and seeing your viability score climb, go back to the top. Notification of Verifiable Innocence (NOVI) Scroll back to the top, and find the GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS have converted to your Notice of Verifiable Innocence. You find a printable copy of this at the NOVI tab. Certificate of Verifiable Innocence (COVI) The second page becomes your very own Certificate of Verifiable Innocence. Sideways, of course. Go to the COVI tab for a lateral version, which you can now save as a PDF, and print out as needed.   In the future, we may put your account number on this printable certificate. That way, anyone can look up your vouched for innocence. Estimated Innocence Report (EIR) The next five pages, page three through seven, becomes your updated Estimated Innocence Report (or EIR for short). You will notice how much of it displays whatever you entered in section F.   Use the downward pointing green arrows to quickly return to section F, like if you need to edit it or correct any misspelling. Once at section F, click on the upward pointing yellow review  arrows to instantly get back to the EIR.   Go to the EIR tab to more easily save your EIR as a PDF. You can also easily print this out from there. Send the PDF or printed copy to someone who supports your innocence. Have them review it and offer any helpful improvements.   Thank them for their constructive feedback. Then improve your EIF with their input. And with your own recognized room for improving it.   Remember, this portion distills your Estimated Innocence into an easily digestible report. It likely will be the only aspects of your acclaimed innocence most people will ever see. Conviction Quality Report (CQR) This organizes all of your identified factors contributing to the wrongful conviction, and displays it for easy processing for innocence litigators. Go to the CQR tab to easily save this as a PDF. And to print it out, if needed.   Look for similar reports to be included in the next updated version of the EIF. Save this version   After you fill out all the relevant white fields and have fixed any errors, click save. You can save your changes in one of thee ways. Pick the method you’re most comfortable using.   Method 1: While holding down the shift key, press the ‘S’ key. Or… Method 2: Click on the diskette icon on the top bar to the left in Excel. Or… Method 3: Point your mouse arrow of the File menu. Click it. Then go down to Save, and click that. Next, click on Save as  (under the File menu) to create a copy of this version. If this is still in your downloads folder, pick a location to save this copy on your device. Edit the file name by adding who you plan to send it to.   For example, “EIF E01 - Innocence Project”. You can now easily save a PDF copy from this version of your work. To save as a PDF Instead of sending the Excel file, you may prefer to send either the whole file or one of the tabs as a PDF. If unfamiliar how to do this, simply follow these steps. Click on the step listed below to quickly go down to the detailed instructions for it further below. You can click on that step below to quickly return to this list of steps. 1. Go to File. 2. Go to Save as. 3. Click browse. Pick a location on your device. 4. Click on Excel Workback after Save as type: 5. Select PDF. 6. Click save. These steps apply specifically to Excel 2021 while using Windows 11. Yours may look a little different. These images above are for a different spreadsheet tool, but illustrate the same steps. 1.   Go to File. From within Excel, point your mouse to the first menu option: File. This opens you to your list of saved Excel files. 2. Go to Save as. Move your mouse arrow down over the Save As option. Click "Save As" to get ready to save a version of this file. 3. Click browse. Pick a location on your device. Move your arrow over Browse, to the right of the folder icon. Click on "Browse" to open the Save As dialogue box. 4. Click on Excel Workback after Save as type: While the standard copy of the file name is highlighted in blue, now is a good time to edit the file name. Click after the file name and add the recipient's name. E.g., "EIF - Innocence Project 1". We recommend adding a number in case you later need to create updated versions. Next, click in the "Save as type:" field below the file name. Click on " Excel Workbook " to open the list of available file types. 5. Select PDF. Move your arrow down to PDF (near the bottom of the list). Select it. Be sure this the location you want to save this PDF version of your EIF. If not, now is the time to change the folder. You will need to remember this file location when ready to send it to the recipient. 6. Click save. Move the mouse arrow down the lower right of the dialogue box. Click on the S ave  button. Once saved, your PDF should open the program you have defaulted to open PDFs. For most of us, that would be Adobe Reader . Need help completing this form, or how to use it? As the professionally responsive  sender, you can use this tool just once or many times. If used repeatedly, you have further options. 1. Do It Yourself option. You can opt to download this tool, fill it out according to these instructions, and send the results directly to each recipient you contact. No cost to us or to you. No hassles. No kidding. 2. Free peer support option. If you have a question about the EIF not covered by these instructions, you can seek answers from others more familiar more with it. Free, but you will have to sign up to use the forum. “If you have any question how to use the Estimated Innocence Form, go ahead and ask them here.” You just have to sign up to become a member of Anankelogy Foundation.org. Simply follow the forum’s guidelines. Much like the group rules you see in almost any Facebook group.   Post your questions and concerns. Answer the posted questions from others. Help each other optimize this free tool for publicizing your innocence. To enter, click the button below.    3. Free expert support option. If you get stuck, consider receiving one-on-one support from the person who created this tool. While offered free up front, I ask you for a donation afterwards. Your gift for using this Estimated Innocence Support service can help me faithfully provide it. 1. Click the ‘Book Now’ button above . This takes you to the booking process. You do not have to log in for this process, but that can make it go smoother. You will see how these sessions last 25 minutes on Zoom. While each session is provided to you without cost, it does cost me to provide it. So after the session, I will invite you to donate what you can afford. 2. Click the ‘Request to Book’ button . The "Appointment Summary" appears. “Estimated Innocence Support online With Steph Turner • 23 min • Donate afterward”. Click the “Schedule Appointment” button below this text. 3. Schedule your appointment. You will see a calendar on the next page. I am available to provide sessions during the evenings of Sunday through Thursday. After you pick a day and time right for you, click the ‘Request to Book’ button at the right on that page. 4. Client details . Provide the information we will need to properly serve you. Add an optional message, if you like. Post any question you may have so I can be prepared to promptly answer it. 5. Review and place order . Confirm your name and email is correct. If all looks okay, click the “Request to Book” button at the right. 6. Confirmation . You’re set! I will confirm your order as soon as I can. Check your email for a confirmation of this scheduled online session. If you do not see it promptly, then check your spam folder. You can optionally add this to your Google Calendar . See you then. Give us your feedback 1. Help spot our mistakes. As I write this, this tool's potential has yet to be tested in real life situations. Your feedback to this tool could help improve it for the lives of countless others. Please report any problems you encounter. Thank you. identify any misspelling report any broken links here or in the spreadsheet report any problem with page breaks in the spreasdsheet form suggest improvements propose a wrongful conviction factor overlooked here (click here for ideas) 2. Take a very short survey. Please take a moment for this three-question survey. 1) Agree or disagree that you found the Estimated Innocence Form to be useful. 2) Agree or disagree that you found the Estimated Innocence Form to be difficult to use. 3) What is one thing about it you would change if you could? 3. Take a slightly longer survey. To give us more of your feedback, consider filling out our longer survey. If you could make this better, what would you change? This 16-item survey consists mostly of multiple choice answers. Your answers can help shape this tool to fit the underserved needs of the unexonerated wrongly convicted. If wrongly convicted yourself, or you represent someone who is wrongly convicted, and not yet exonerated, this tool and survey is especially for you. How can Estimated Innocence better serve you as the innocence claimant or their rep? How can Estimated Innocence better serve you as the innocence litigator or their org? Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey. Click on the button for you to start. For innocence claimants For innocence litigators Follow its development on our podcast   I , Steph Turner, will be the first to try these pioneering alternatives. Before inviting you to test the untried, I aim to build rapport with the judicial system. I will first serve their need to process innocence claims more efficiently and effectively.   Then I hope to come back to you with some good news. You can follow how this all works out at our Need-Response podcast . We solve problems by resolving needs, one person at a time. That could include you, soon enough.   Listen each Wednesday as we test this fresh approach to resolving needs. Subscribe at Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. We may even invite you on the show one day, to share how this new experience works for you.   Click on the Need-Response podcast show image to learn more.

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-response 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

This is an opinion piece published in the Washington Post by Samuel R. Gross, July 24, 2015. It is reproduced here for those who need this information and cannot afford their paywall; those who can should click here to go directly to it. Susan Mellen, left, is exonerated of murder by Superior Court Judge Mark Arnold in Torrance, Calif. At right, her attorney Deirdre O'Connor. (Brad Graverson/Associated Press) Samuel R. Gross, July 24, 2015 Samuel R. Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, is the editor of the National Registry of Exonerations. I do not own the copyright to this article or its included image. These are reproduced here for those who need this information and cannot afford their paywall; those who can should click here to go directly to this online article. Unlike that 2015 article, this one updates each of its links in 2025. Specifically, the links to the National Registry of Exoneration cases, which was still being hosted by the University of Michigan law school back when this was first published, but now has their own site: exonerationregistry.org. I edit the National Registry of Exonerations, which compiles stories and data about people who were convicted of crimes in the United States and later exonerated. The cases are fascinating and important, but they wear on me: So many of them are stories of destruction and defeat. Consider, for example, Rafael Suarez. In 1997 in Tucson, Suarez was convicted of a vicious felony assault for which another man had already pleaded guilty. Suarez's lawyer interviewed the woman who called 911 to report the incident as well as a second eyewitness. Both said that Suarez did not attack the victim and, in fact, had attempted to stop the assault. A third witness told the lawyer that he heard the victim say that he would lie in court to get Suarez convicted. None of these witnesses were called to testify at trial. Suarez was convicted and sentenced to five years. After these facts came to light in 2000, Suarez was released. He had lost his house and his job, and his plan to become a paralegal had been derailed. His wife had divorced him, and he had lost parental rights to their three children, including one born while he was locked up. Suarez sued his former lawyer, who by then had been disbarred. He got a $1 million judgment, but the lawyer had no assets and filed for bankruptcy. Barring a miracle, Suarez will never see a penny of that judgment. The most depressing thing about Suarez’s case is how comparatively lucky he was. He was exonerated, against all odds, because his otherwise irresponsible lawyer had actually talked to the critical witnesses and recorded those interviews despite failing later to call them at trial. Suarez served three years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. The average time served for the 1,625 exonerated individuals in the registry is more than nine years. Last year, three innocent murder defendants in Cleveland were exonerated 39 years after they were convicted — they spent their entire adult lives in prison — and even they were lucky: We know without doubt that the vast majority of innocent defendants who are convicted of crimes are never identified and cleared. We know without doubt that the vast majority of innocent defendants who are convicted of crimes are never identified and cleared. The registry receives four or five letters a week from prisoners who claim to be innocent. They’re heartbreaking. Most of the writers are probably guilty, but some undoubtedly are not. We tell them that we can’t help; we are a research project only, we don’t represent clients or investigate claims of innocence. Fair enough, I guess, but some innocent prisoners who have been exonerated wrote hundreds of these letters before anybody took notice. How many innocent defendants have I ignored? Innocence projects do handle these cases, or at least some of them. They receive many times more letters than we do. I’ve spoken with lawyers who do this work, and who have successfully exonerated dozens of defendants. Most of them have clients who remain in prison despite powerful evidence of their innocence that no court will consider. And they all know that there are countless innocent defendants hidden in the piles of pleas for help that they will never have time to investigate. How many people are convicted of crimes they did not commit? Last year, a study I co-authored on the issue was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It shows that 4.1 percent of defendants who are sentenced to death in the United States are later shown to be innocent: 1 in 25. Death sentences are uniquely well-documented. We don't know nearly enough about other kinds of criminal cases to estimate the rate of wrongful convictions for those. The rate could be lower than for capital murders, or it could be higher. Of course, in a country with millions of criminal convictions a year and more than 2 million people behind bars, even 1 percent amounts to tens of thousands of tragic errors. The problem may be worst at the low end of the spectrum, in misdemeanor courts where almost everybody pleads guilty. For example, in July 2014 Wassillie Gregory was charged with "harassment" of a police officer in Bethel, Alaska. The officer wrote in his report that Gregory was "clearly intoxicated" and that "I kindly tried to assist Gregory into my cruiser for protective custody when he pulled away and clawed at me with his hand." The next step in the case would normally be the last: Gregory pleaded guilty, without the benefit of a defense lawyer. But Gregory was exonerated a year later after a surveillance video surfaced showing the officer handcuffing him and then repeatedly slamming him onto the pavement. In the past year, 45 defendants were exonerated after pleading guilty to low-level drug crimes in Harris County, Tex. They were cleared months or years after conviction by lab tests that found no illegal drugs in the materials seized from them. Why then did they plead guilty? As best we can tell, most were held in jail because they couldn’t make bail. When they were brought to court for the first time, they were given a take-it-or-leave-it, for-today-only offer: Plead guilty and get probation or weeks to months in jail. If they refused, they’d wait in jail for months, if not a year or more, before they got to trial, and risk additional years in prison if they were convicted. That’s a high price to pay for a chance to prove one’s innocence. Police officers are supposed to be suspicious and proactive, to stop, question and arrest people who might have committed crimes, or who might be about to do so. Most officers are honest, and, I am sure, they are usually right. But “most” and “usually right” are not good enough for criminal convictions. Courts — judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, sometime juries — are supposed to decide criminal cases. Instead, most misdemeanor courts outsource deciding guilt or innocence to the police. It’s cheaper, but you get what you pay for. We can do better, of course — for misdemeanors, for death penalty cases and for everything in between — if we’re willing to foot the bill. It’ll cost money to achieve the quality of justice we claim to provide: to do more careful investigations, to take fewer quick guilty pleas and conduct more trials, and to make sure those trials are well done. But first we have to recognize that what we do now is not good enough. Estimated Rates of Wrongful Convictions in the U.S. I, Steph Turner, followed the academic literature trying to estimate the rate of wrongful convictions in the U.S. The earliest publications do not make much of a distinction between "legal innocence" on a procedural technicality and "actual innocence" of having no role in the reported incident. Most of the later articles do emphasize this distinction. Perhaps unsurprisingly, researchers with an invested interest in the status quo (i.e., who work within the criminal justice system, such as a judge) argue for lower rates than academicians with less of a vest interest (i.e., criminologists independent of the judicial system's status quo). This encapsulates the available findings as of 2021. More researched estimates have emerged since this was written. Click to open a PDF summarizing various estimated rates of wrongful conviction by researchers, including one authored by Gross and another co-authored by Gross. Academic author(s) Estimated rate of wrongful convictions Felony conviction population (20M) wrongly convicted Wrongful conv. – exonerated (2775) = unexonerated % of wrongful convictions cleared Hoffman 0.0016% - 1.95% 320 - 390,000 (2,455) - 387,225 0.71% to 867% Cassell 0.016% - 0.062% 3,200 - 12,400 425 - 9,625 22.38% - 86.72% Scalia (Marquis) 0.027% 5,400 2,625 51.39% Zalman 0.5% - 1% 100,000 - 200,000 97,225 - 197,225 1.39% - 2.78% Ramsey & Frank 0.5% - 3% 100,000 - 600,000 97,225 - 597,225 0.46% - 2.78% Gross 2.30% 460,000 57,225 0.60% Risinger 3.3% - 5.0% 660,000 - 1,000,000 657,225 - 997,225 0.28% - 0.42% Gross, et al. 4.1% 820,000 817,225 0.34% Roman, et al. 5% - 15.4% 1,000,000 - 3,080,000 997,225 - 3,077,225 0.09% - 0.28% Loeffler, et al. 6% 1,200,000 1,197,225 0.23% Walsh, et al. 11.60% 2,320,000 2,317,225 0.12% Poveda 15% 3,000,000 2,997,225 0.09% Besides the National Registry of Exonerations, other such listings exist. Innocents Database DNA Exonerations Database If you know of any other, please add them in the comments below. And report any broken links. Thank you.

Need-response seeks to partner with any law school A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z The ABA warns of the erosion of the rule of law . What if that’s merely the tip of the iceberg?   Needs evolved first The new profession of need-response  has the answer:   Never put the role of law ahead of the inflexible needs   for which laws exist to serve.   No law can compel action at odds with the inflexible reality of our needs. Yet we keep trying. And we keep failing.   Need-response puts inflexible needs ahead of flexible laws. This new professional field emerges from the new social science of need, called anankelogy .   Learn about the needs that laws exist to serve Anankelogy provides illuminating insight into what fuels the necessity for laws. Consider this sample of anankelogical insight  that gets easily overlooked in the study of law. inflexible needs : While no one sits above the law, no law sits above the needs they exist to serve . The needs arrived first, as objective fact . They are inflexible and cannot be manipulated to serve laws. Attempts to acquiesce to social pressure readily results in psychological maladies. The law works best when opposing questionable behavior, and never to oppose the inflexible needs themselves. properly resolving needs : The legal system offers to the winning side in a court battle or ballot contest some relief from the pain of unmet needs. There is no such thing as pain apart from unresolved needs . Offering only relief from pain, while reinforcing the pain of the losing side, easily provokes more problems and conflicts. Only when all sides can fully resolve their needs without imposing on others can human flourishing emerge. While application of law can be necessary, its improper application can risk doing more harm than good. toxic legalism : Solzhenitsyn warned us that a society too focused on law undermines human flourishing . The adversarial legal system needlessly divides us, alienates us from each other, hinders our human potential for love . Instead of honoring the needs of others as we would have them honor our own, we slip into moral laziness and set ourselves up for repeated disappointment, and utter disillusionment . Other helpful insights include: objective morality , problem levels , symfunction capture , and law-fit. When you realize the law is not enough Need-response could offer a meaningful alternative for disillusioned lawyers  who seek a less confrontational approach to resolving conflicts. And for those disillusioned with lawyers , or disillusioned with the adversarial judicial system , who seek a better way to resolve their conflicts. Let’s partner to learn together. Alphabetical list of US law schools Anankelogy can learn much from the law. Likewise, the law can learn much from anankelogy. Let us learn from each other. A Akron Alabama Albany American Appalachian Arizona Arizona State Arkansas - Fayetteville Arkansas - Little Rock Atlanta's John Marshall Law School Ave Maria School of Law B Baltimore Barry University Baylor Belmont University Boston College Boston University Brigham Young Brooklyn Buffalo C California - Berkeley California - Davis California - San Francisco California - Irvine California - Los Angeles California Western Campbell Capital Case Western Reserve Catholic University of America Chapman Charleston Chicago Chicago-Kent Cincinnati City University of New York Cleveland State Colorado Columbia Connecticut Cooley Law School Cornell Creighton D Dayton Denver DePaul Detroit Mercy District of Columbia Drake Drexel Duke Duquesne E Elon Emory F Faulkner Florida   Florida Florida International Florida State Fordham G George Mason Georgetown George Washington Georgia Georgia State Golden Gate Gonzaga H Harvard Hawaii Hofstra Houston Howard I Idaho Illinois Chicago Illinois Indiana University - Bloomington Indiana University - Indianapolis Inter-American Iowa J Jacksonville Judge Advocate General's School K Kansas Kentucky L Liberty Lincoln Memorial Lewis and Clark Louisiana State Louisville Loyola - Chicago Loyola - Los Angeles Loyola - New Orleans M Maine Marquette Maryland Massachusetts McGeorge Memphis Mercer Miami Michigan State Michigan Minnesota Mississippi College Mississippi Missouri Missouri - Kansas City Mitchell Hamline Montana N Nebraska Nevada New England Law | Boston New Mexico New Hampshire (formerly Franklin Pierce) New York Law School New York University North Carolina North Carolina Central North Dakota Northeastern Northern Illinois Northern Kentucky Northwestern Notre Dame Nova Southeastern O Ohio Northern The Ohio State Oklahoma Oklahoma City Oregon P Pace Pennsylvania Penn State-Dickinson Law Pepperdine Pittsburgh Pontifical Catholic of Puerto Rico Puerto Rico Q Quinnipiac R Regent Richmond Roger Williams Rutgers S St. John's Saint Louis St. Mary's St. Thomas (Florida) St. Thomas (Minnesota) Samford San Diego San Francisco Santa Clara Seattle Seton Hall South Carolina South Dakota South Texas-Houston Southern University Southern California Southern Illinois Southern Methodist   Southwestern Stanford Stetson Suffolk Syracuse T Temple Tennessee Texas Texas A&M (formerly Texas Wesleyan) Texas Southern Texas Tech   Toledo Touro Tulane Tulsa U UNT Dallas Utah V Vanderbilt Vermont Villanova Virginia W Wake Forest Washburn Washington and Lee Washington Washington University Wayne State Western New England Western State West Virginia Widener-Delaware Widener-Commonwealth Willamette William And Mary Wilmington Wisconsin Wyoming X Xavier Law School Y Yale Yeshiva Z If you know of a law school missing from this list, then let us know in the comments below. Thank you.

Welcome to the complementary profession of need-response. Who watches the watchers? Executive Summary [TLDR] Need-response emerges as a new professional service to complement, or potentially compete with, the adversarial judicial system to serve the public’s justice needs. Only need-response emphasizes understanding the unresolved needs fueling conflicts, and how to more effectively respond to such needs. We invite everyone working within the judicial system to engage this fresh approach to serving one another’s underserved needs.   Thank you for your service Wherever you serve the public in helping us all to stay safe and orderly, we thank you for your service. We appreciate how challenging it can be to reach just outcomes amidst our human complexities. The Anankelogy Foundation  can provide you some helpful insight to unpack those complexities, with its new proposed professional service of need-response .   This visionary service seeks to support your efforts to address and resolve justice needs. We address the justice needs of the people based on this new social science of anankelogy , the disciplined study of need.   Every need persists as an objective fact Foundational to this new academic field is the empirically based assertion that core needs exist as objective fact . Need-response as applied anankelogy exists to serve such “ inflexible needs ”. Such needs can never bend to serve arbitrary laws  or the authorities that exist to address such needs.   Consider the implications of this vicious cycle. legalism cycle The more one suppresses their inflexible needs to appease authority, the less they can fully function. The less they can fully function, the less capable they can comply with every legal requirement. The less they comply with every legal code, the more easily targeted by law enforcement. The more targeted by law enforcement, the more prone to suppress their inflexible needs to appease that authority. Back to square one.   Trapping us in pain of our unresolved justice needs An ethical dilemma emerges. The more the impersonal approach of law enforcement elicits poor outcomes benefitting its practice, the more motivated reasoning can blind judicial officials from its own role in such poor outcomes. The more you benefit as an institution from the negative situations you arguably help to create, the less incentivized to produce just outcomes for the people.   We appreciate how police must take an adversarial stance when apprehending someone presenting a threat. After such a person gets placed in custody, we see less room to impose adversarial assumptions. But we recognize such adversarialism is built into the very structure of the judicial process. 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. Consider the evolved dependence upon plea deals to avoid overwhelming the court docket. Consider how this avoids guaranteeing every accused defendant of their constitutional right to a fair trial. Then consider this as mission creep on steroids. 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 objectify 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