Love as honoring the needs of others as one's own Which do you think is best? We must regard laws as the highest standard for our behavior. OR Love serves as a higher standard for our behavior over mere law. Anankelogy puts our needs under the microscope. And examines how we address our needs. Need-response as applied anankelogy looks at the results. It finds the motive of love more powerful and legitimizing than the lesser power of law. How you address needs predicts wellness outcomes. Consider these seven options. The last unleashes our potential to love one another more, to honor the needs of others as our own. Improperly relieving pain of unmet needs Properly relieving pain of unmet needs Improperly easing need s Properly easing needs Improperly resolving needs Properly resolving needs Bronze standard Silver standard Gold standard Platinum standard Love as the highest standard 1. Improperly relieving pain of unmet needs You can address your painful needs by chiefly relieving your pain in ways that impose upon the needs of others. By "improperly", we mean antisocial. If I attempt to relieve the pain of feeling insulted by you by hitting you in return, then I am "improperly relieving my pain". You may hit me back, which ensures I suffer more pain. Besides, my need to feel respected will persist unresolved. 2. Properly relieving pain of unmet needs You can address your painful needs by chiefly relieving your pain in ways that avoid imposing upon others. By "properly", we mean prosocial. You could drink plenty of alcohol to numb your emotional pain, for example, but stay home alone instead of venturing out to drive. You "properly relieve your pain" by not risking the safety of others in the process. But your pain persists. Whether improperly or properly relieving your pain, your wellness outcomes likely results in a level of dysfunction . You find you must prioritize relieving your pain of your unmet needs. You risk becoming addicted to "substitutes" that can only numb your pain. They do little to nothing to improve your wellbeing. Your ability to function remains compromised, leaving you trapped in perpetual pain. At least until you can resolve those needs. 3. Improperly easing needs You can seek to ease your needs in ways that in some way impose something on others. You partially resolve your needs, but in a way that impedes others from resolving their need. Fully resolving your needs could be out of reach for you. You indulge in pornography, for example, to placate your burning desire for intimacy. You ignore the fact that the young women in the video were obviously coerced into performing acts for your viewing pleasure. 4. Properly easing needs You seek to ease your needs in ways that do not impose on others. You partially resolve your need, but in a way that only negatively impacts yourself. Avoiding any harm to others is noble, but can trick you into rationalizing your doing alright. You consume plenty of junk food, for example, when you cannot make enough time to prepare a healthy meal. You force yourself to fulfill all of your social commitments, despite your declining level of energy. Whether improperly or properly easing your needs, your wellness outcomes likely results in a level of symfunction . You find you must prioritize easing your unmet needs. The more you rely on "alternatives" that partially eases your needs, the more you risk slipping into a symfunction trap . Which becomes for many a gateway into dysfunction. 5. Improperly resolving needs You can try to resolve your needs fully in a way that hinders others from resolving their needs. You momentarily get to restore yourself to full functioning, but at the involuntary expense of others. If I fully quench my thirst by stealing a bottle of water from you, then I am "improperly resolving my need" for water. Sure, I can get back to fully functioning. But at the cost of your ability to restore full wellness. 6. Properly resolving needs You can attempt to resolve your needs fully in a way that does not hinder others from resolving their needs. This serves as the best approach, the best way to address your needs. If I fully resolve a need I am experiencing, and my actions or inactions does not harm you in any way, then I am "properly resolving my need". This can be broken down into four degrees, each characterized by a prized metal. A . The bronze standard - Your actions to resolve your needs fully mildly inconveniences others. E.g., while at a restaurant, you carefully select and purchase only the food your body requires, which forces some to wait a little longer in line. B . The silver standard - Your actions to resolve your needs fully has no impact upon others. E.g., you invest your personal time staying in shape with healthy physical exercise. C . The gold standard - Your actions to resolve your needs fully actually helps others. E.g., you promptly shovel snow from your sidewalk after a snow storm, which allows passersby to not risk slipping on ice as they must walk past your house. D . The platinum standard - Your actions to resolve your needs fully helps everyone. E.g., you fully resolve your need for meaning in life when sacrificing it to save all life on earth from an impending disaster only you can stop. 7.   Love as the highest standard Need-response asserts the higher standard of properly resolving needs. The more you can prioritize respecting the inflexible needs of others as your own, the more you can inspire others to respect your inflexible needs. Not always, of course. But with sufficient skill and grace, such " social love " takes us much farther than typical modes of privileged selfishness. Need-response encourages and incentivizes the development of such love in us all. Whether improperly or properly resolving your needs fully, your wellness outcomes likely results in a level of peakfunction . You prioritize promptly resolving your needs fully. You enjoy access to "primary" resources that evolved to restore you to full functioning capacity. You do not need to be wealthy to reliably access such primary resources. But economic security correlates with sustainability of a peakfunction level. Without such a love-centered commitment to honor the needs of others as our own, we easily fall back on reliance upon laws to tell us how to behave. Authority enforcing laws relies blindly on external motives. Love nurtures sustainable internal motives. The internal motive of love can outlast the external motivation by laws or authority. Need-response nurtures our underutilized potential to be more loving to each other. The power of love transcends the supposed supremacy of law. Need-response can complement efforts by law enforcement authorities to improve our responsiveness to each other's vulnerable needs. Or need-response can compete with legal authorities by outperforming their legalis m . The more we can properly resolve needs with the power of love, the less we fall prey to legalistic tyranny. Need-response holds us all accountable to honoring each other's inflexible needs, including legal authorities. Need-response asserts this as the higher standard of love . And dares to challenge the legitimacy of any authority whose imposing actions correlate with poor wellness outcomes, such as anxiety and depression. Wherever law seeks to reign supreme, need-response challenges the results. And dares to assert the supremacy of love as a standard higher than law. Anankelogy asserts that there is no greater authority than resolving needs with love . Need-response lets our untapped love reign supreme. back-to-top

Optimize your online innocence narrative with these helpful criteria Apply these standards mostly to your Summary . But these also apply to your Synopsis and other elements of your Innocence Profile . Use these criteria to get the most out of your publicly available innocence narrative. A. Entice your viewers Grab attention . Keep the viewer engaged. Speak directly to obvious pain points. Find a way to motivate the reader to say to themselves, “Oh, I’ve gotta read the rest of this!” Twists . Use this popular device in movies. You take the reader down one path, then abruptly switch up. For example, you called the police to report a crime, then the police showed up to arrest you! This prompts the viewer to keep reading, to find out how this could be. Write in the 3rd person . Instead of saying “I” or “me”, use your name. Let your descriptions seem like they are from a neutral, less partial observer. Write concisely . Consider the short attention spans of your readers. Avoid giving them any reason not to scan your whole profile. Clarity . Avoid any confusion. Cover the who, what, where, when, why and how in as few of words you can. Replace anything that sounds even a little confusing.   B. Keep your viewers Check spelling and grammar . Use a free service like Grammarly to ensure your writing is free from simple mistakes. Read it aloud . Listen for mistakes you hadn’t noticed. Does it sound engaging? Does it flow naturally? Try improving it to sound like more like a natural conversation. Rewrite . Don’t settle on your first draft. Edit the weak spots. Replace passive verbs with an active verb. For example, replace “I was accused by my mom” to “My mom accused me.” Use descriptive language, that can provoke imagery in the reader’s mind. Avoid too many “is” and “are”. Replace them with more descriptive verbs. Avoid jargon . Don’t assume viewers know the abbreviations or less common terms you use. Keep the language accessible for anyone.   C. Respect your viewers Nonjudgmental . No accusations about corrupt DA or judges, even if they are corrupt. Simply describe what occurred and trust the viewer to judge for themselves. No anger . No ALL CAPS shouting at the reader. Trust the viewer to empathize with your plight. Defy stereotypes . Write with a language that exemplifies your innocence. No cussing. No defensiveness. No condescending rhetoric. Give no reason for others to doubt your integrity. No doxxing . Leave out any personal information about others that could expose their privacy. Don’t publish their address, as you wouldn’t want them to publish your private address. Transparency . Admit your shortcomings. Everyone is imperfect. Cultivate trust with being humble and upfront about your mistakes. Be specific . Don’t exaggerate. Without getting too wordy, give the viewer the essential details.   D. Inspire your viewers Suspense . Tease their curiosity. Leave out less important stuff that you can always share later. Entice their interest to know more, which can motivate them to follow you online. Appreciate the viewer . Be thankful they invest their precious time taking interest in your story. You could even thank them as you wrap up your narrative. CTA . Close with a call-to-action. Suggest a simple thing the viewer can do to help support your innocence. For example, “You can show your support by signing my petition below.”   Improving your innocence profile together Use examples that have been posted for a while. Let them model how you can improve your own innocence narrative.   Ask a friend to read your first draft. And second. Invite their feedback. If you go onto a public exoneration campaign, they may be among your first passionate supporters.   Share these criteria with them. Then ask them to rate your innocence narrative on each of these points. Of course, thank them for their help.   Improve your innocence narrative until you’re satisfied it’s ready for public viewing. But don’t wait for perfection. Get your story out there so people can see the injustice you daily endure.   Together, we can improve not only your innocence narrative, but this platform. To ultimately improve our chances for exonerating the wrongly convicted innocent like you.

Jun 06 2023 Jamie Weissmann This replicates verbatim the news release posted at the California Innocence Project, which has since been renamed as the California Western Innocence and Justice Project . Click here  to see its source. With the rapid ascension of Chat-GPT and other AI programs, we are witnessing what may be the most significant technological development in history. Here at California Western, we are already on the forefront of an AI-powered paradigm shift in the way lawyering is done, embracing the possibilities this technology offers to vastly improve our justice system. In November 2022, CWSL’s California Innocence Project (CIP) became a beta tester for CoCounsel, the company CaseText’s AI legal assistance application. CoCounsel is a generative Large Language Model (LLM) system designed by OpenAI and can “read, write, and understand texts at a post-graduate level.” CoCounsel can do legal research in a fraction of the time that a lawyer can, combing through case files, reviewing and summarizing documents, drafting correspondence, and more. In this interview, CIP’s managing attorney Michael Semanchik explains how he is using CoCounsel and why he thinks embracing AI is the best course of action for lawyers. What does CoCounsel free you up to do? In the past, it would take 15 minutes to draft a letter to a client. CoCounsel made it possible to get a first draft done in under a minute. Similarly, I’ve asked CoCounsel to summarize five pages of transcript on a complicated forensic science topic. It provided a five-bullet summary in plain English. The time saved using skills like these can certainly allow me to do more on my cases. As for the future, I imagine dropping 2,000 pages of transcripts into a system and getting a perfectly drafted “Statement of Facts” on the other side. That same system might know how to identify all the legal issues in the transcripts and highlight them as possible issues to raise on appeal or in a post-conviction world. We’re definitely getting close, but I would say still a few months to a year off from homing in on exactly what an attorney wants and needs. Does it make for better lawyering? As far as analyzing and responding to opposing counsel’s briefs, there’s no question it can make for better lawyering. I would argue that in the long-term, failure to embrace and utilize AI may result in a lawyer not being the best and most competent advocate for their client. Has it allowed you to take on more clients? I would say it’s probably too early to tell but I could certainly see a situation where we take on more clients. It’s likely that we will be able to home in on the most viable cases, meaning we’re spending our limited resources most efficiently. Might it lead to more exonerations? This is a definite possibility. Relying on humans to sift through thousands of pages of police reports and transcripts looking for a needle in a stack of needles is incredibly challenging, resource intensive, and likely not without some missteps or faults. By “outsourcing” this portion of our process to AI, we should be able to move through cases quicker and locate evidence of innocence that will ultimately lead us to exonerations. Have you run into any issues with unreliable information? I have seen blatant errors on ChatGPT. With CoCounsel, I have seen errors, though less so. This may be because the system is relying on the information you provide. Are there any downsides to using AI in this way? The only downside is that AI is in its infancy. We still need more lawyers using it every day so the AI and engineers can better craft the responses from the system. And we need additional skills built into the platform to cover all areas of law. As AI gets more intelligent and efficient, how do you see the field of law– and particularly of innocence projects– evolving? I would hope to see that getting an innocent person out of prison goes from an average of 16 years down to three or four. Perhaps we get to a point where AI can start to identify wrongful convictions as soon as they happen. I know it sounds odd, but putting innocence organizations out of work is our goal.

Need-response uses this downloadable tool to measure impacted wellness outcomes Need-response holds all accountable to positive wellness outcomes. Armed with the knowledge that organic needs are inflexible, need-response prioritizes wellness outcomes over social norms. Anankelogy recognizes how solving problems depends upon resolving needs. The less your needs can resolve, the greater your problem of diminished wellness. The more your needs resolve, the greater your wellness. Wellness efforts like Public Exoneration aims to improve wellness by solving stubborn problems. The closer the wrongly convicted innocent draws towards exoneration, the more well they measurably become. Need-response provides this free tool to gage wellness impacts on its wellness improving efforts. Click the button at the bottom to download your own copy. Using thorough and brief measures This tool utilizes thoroughly tested psychometric tests at the start and finish. But uses a simple test in between. This keeps it relatively easier to use. Such measures lack full reliability. Self-reporting tends to lack accuracy because of inherent biases. But this tool adequately serves its purpose to hold wellness efforts accountable to measurable results. The first page serves to display the results tracked in the pages below. The next three pages (in light green), along with the last three pages, check wellness using multi-item self-assessments. The middle pages (in light purple) simple asked how to self-assess the three measures. Three measures Many items could be assessed. Such as including one's sense of helplessness. Or the level of anger felt when wronged. But this tool aims to stay simple, for relatively easier use. At the risk of becoming too reductive, this tool seeks to capture how one is doing by assessing three simple wellness markers. Anxiety level. Self-assesses how anxious one is at the time of response. A persisting problem forces you to handle more than you're likely prepared to take on. And this can turn overwhelming. Depression level. Self-assesses how depressed one is at the time of response. Any persisting problem likely robs you of energy. Solving such a problem can help you get back on your feet. Addictiveness level. Self-assesses how addictive one is at the time of response. This moves beyond addiction itself. You could be repressing your addiction for junk food, and outward appear to be doing fine, but still be struggling with internal turmoil. Holistic wellness Need-response appreciate how the term "mental illness" serves as a kind of synecdoche. Which is a figure of speech that refers to something by referencing a part of it. For example, "boots on the ground" or a "hired hand". What we call "mental illness" involves cognition. But thinking is only a part of wellness. If offered only bad options, your wellness inevitably declines now matter how good your mental processes. Need-response involves more than the thinking you can control by addressing areas your thinking cannot control. It uniquely looks at the whole of a situation that reinforces a problem you face. It aims to address a problem at all of its levels. Page by page The image on the left shows you the empty tool. It includes a sample tab, which you can see here on the right. Page 1 The initial page is completely for show. No white fields to enter any data. The table and chart evolves as the data gets entered in the pages below. Page 2 The tool captures a baseline of your anxiety level. It uses the well established "GAD-7" psychometric tool. That stands for General Anxiety Disorder - Seven. That means it only has seven items to answer. After filling in all the white fields, using the dropdown lists, it kicks out a number, which gets posted in the table on the first page. And moves the red line on the chart. It's okay if that number is relatively high. The higher that first number, the more significant the improvement you will see as we proceed into the program. The text below the Wellness update heading also changes. This includes a line that states how your self-reported anxiety can be characterized in mental health terms. For example, if your number is significantly high at this point, then you present yourself with "severe anxiety". NOTE: This data qualifies as personal health information protected by law. We are prohibited from sharing it without your permission. However, you agree by your participation in this program to allow us to share it publicly without any links to your identity, as permitted by law, to enable us to demonstrate the program's effectiveness. Page 3 The tool also captures a baseline of your level of depression. It uses the well established "PHQ-9" psychometric tool. That stands for Patient Depression Questionnaire - Nine. In addition to its nine items is a tenth item to consider if this amounts to major depression. After filling in all the white fields, using the dropdown lists, it kicks out a number, which gets posted in the table on the first page. And moves the blue line on the chart. The text below the Wellness update heading also changes. Page 4 Finally, the tool captures a baseline of your addictiveness. I could not find a freely available psychometric test for this one. Using my academic skills, I crafted my own, based on key symptoms of addictiveness. The text below Wellness update explains how "addictiveness" is distinct from addiction itself. You can suppress your addictions and still present addictiveness. For example, you can stop indulging in viewing porn but remain obsessed with the imagery in your imagination. Gaging your level of cravings points to how you struggle to cope while burdened with an unsolved problem. As need-response helps you solve that problem, we anticipate your obsessive cravings will naturally decrease. Page 5 After the baseline measures at the start of the program, you wait until directed to move onto these purple page simple measures. You will be informed when you hit a program milestone and when it is time to check how your wellness has improved or not. Once the need-responsive program proceeds, you simply respond to a single item for each of these three wellness markers. You rate how much each affects your life at the moment. It's overwhelming my life It's consuming my focus It's a concerning problem It's at a manageable level I don't feel it all We expect these to improve significantly after the program helps you develop your need-response orientations. After responding to all three items, you get a percentage number that gets reproduced in the table and chart on the first page. And the text below informs you how the current levels compare to your last self-reported levels for each. Page 6 Each of these purple pages covers two milestone measures. When informed you hit the next milestone, simply answer in the same way. After responding to all three items, the same kind of results appear as before. Scroll to top page to see how the graph moves. Page 7 When indicated, you continue to assess your level of anxiety, depression, and addictiveness. When you scroll back to the chart on the first page, you may find midway through the program that your wellness seems to regress. No need for alarm. This is natural. A few steps forward often includes a momentary step back. Page 8 As you wrap up the program, we anticipate your wellness significantly improves. As you draw closer to solving the problem, you naturally have less reason to feel intensely anxious or depressed. As you suffer less emotional pain, your addictiveness can decrease. You may continue to still suffer some anxiety, depression and addictiveness for other causes. But your overall levels drop as this major problem finally gets properly addressed. Page 9 When drawing the program to a close, you return to answering the same items as given in the baseline measures. The text below, under Addressing your wellness needs, speaks to how solving your problem should improve your wellness. For example, as we increase your chances for exoneration from a wrongful conviction, you would naturally feel less anxious, less depressed, and less addictive. Page 10 Just as you did with the baseline measures, you answer these ten items the same time you rate your anxiety. This time, the score you get after selecting the last dropdown list level should be significantly lower than your number from the baseline score. If not, the program may not be working for you. Or you are burdened with other problems that require your attention. Page 11 You wrap up your self-assessment by answering these same five items as before. If you can honestly self-report a significant drop in your addictiveness, then the program can be rated as a success! Below the header Addressing your wellness needs, the text changes to a final report. You see your baseline scores compared to your final self-abasement for these psychometric tests. Scroll back to the top and see how this gets illustrated in the chart. If the program helped you to solve your problem, all three wellness levels should steadily decline. Not necessarily in a direct linear path. Some ups and downs can be expected. For example, if you are a wrongly convicted innocent and now receive broad support to be exonerated, or you are now exonerated officially, you naturally feel euphoric. Little if any anxiety or depression remains. Your addictiveness fades away. Life is now much better! Sharing the credit As you improve, you share the credit with your sponsors. They demonstrably helped you to solve your problem. They earned legitimacy through demonstrably helping to improve your wellness levels. You helped your team gain more meaning in their lives. They developed new skills and new understanding. They improved their need-response orientations to help you, which ultimately helps themselves and their other relations. Most importantly for you, you are now better off than you were when the program started. If not, then perhaps another program is needed to address whatever problem hinders your full wellness. Download your own well check tool Need-response honors the widespread belief that individuals should be able to improve their wellness on their own. But sometimes that is not enough. We all face problems beyond our individual control. Some of those problems involve people in positions of authority. And you can find yourself trapped in social norms that get in the way of solving your problem. That is what need-response is for. If you are in a need-response program now to solve a problem to improve your wellness, then you can download a copy of the well check right here. If you need a paper copy to send to someone without free access to a computer, such as an incarcerated wrongly convicted innocent, then you can download this PDF version, print it out, and send it to them. When working in unison with a need-response program, like Public Exoneration, we continue to mutually resolve needs to solve problems. Then trust our wellness levels to measurably improve as a result. This tool helps keep us all accountable, including those in powerful positions. Together, let us improve everyone's wellness by supporting everyone to resolve their needs. In other words, let's honor the needs of others as our own. Let's accountably love one another into greater wellbeing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We know there are far more innocence claimants than innocence litigators to review their viable innocence claims. Are you or a loved one among them? Which do you prefer? Keep up your hopes by staying with established institutions and attempts to reform them. OR Join efforts to co-create a new alternative centered on accountably responding to needs. With the following prompts, I asked ChatGPT  to list the pain points of those who the new professional service of need-response  is being created to serve. “List of pain points of those disillusioned with the innocence movement below.” It gave me the two sets pain points below, totaling 20.   Need-response exists to serve you Now let’s look at how need-response  better serves those underserved and disillusioned by our failing institutions. First... For anyone who doubts the need for an alternative to its adversarial approach Response 1 1.1  Misplaced Resources 1.2  Exclusion of Non-Innocent Defendants 1.3  Pressure to Prove Complete Innocence 1.4  Selective Advocacy 1.5  Influence on Public Perception 1.6  Neglect of Broader Criminal Justice Reforms 1.7  Limited Systemic Change 1.8  Moral Judgments Response 2 2.01  Narrow Focus on Actual Innocence 2.02 Lack of Attention to Broader Criminal Justice Reform 2.03  Resource Allocation and Prioritization 2.04  Dependency on New Evidence or DNA Testing 2.05  Challenges in Securing Post-Release Support 2.06  Difficulty Addressing Systemic Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct 2.07  Media-Driven Perception and Sensationalism 2.08  Psychological Toll on Advocates and Supporters 2.09  Emphasis on "Perfect Victims" for Exoneration 2.10  Slow Pace of Legal Reform 2.11  Internal Movement Challenges and Fragmentation 2.12  Entrenched Social Structures Need-response to the rescue After each point below, I briefly share how need-response  can be far, far better. Click on the right-arrow to learn more. This is where you can join the effort. You are welcomed to respond to this vision, add to it, critique it. You're encouraged to help shape this alternative for resolving more needs and improving our overall wellness. For anyone who doubts the need for an alternative to its adversarial approach Much of the public remains naive about the true workings of the adversarial judicial process. Many accept we have the best judicial system in the world, yet cannot explain how this great system results in the highest incarceration rate in the world . As long as they feel safe in their person and property, they often misattribute their sense of security to law enforcement that rarely if ever disrupts their lives. They poorly assume that law enforcement only targets those who are clearly guilty of wrongdoing. This betrays their fundamental attribution error , which overemphasizes personal agency and underappreciates environmental factors shaping human behavior. They conveniently ignore the actual negative impacts from the imperfect human institutions they blindly trust. The inexperienced public may blindly believe that law enforcement would never target them, because they know they are not guilty of any crime. They likely believe the line between guilt and innocence is clearly black and white. You either did the crime or you didn't. But those better acquainted with the dark side of the criminal justice system realize the difference between legal guilt and legal acquittal can be quite blurred. Law enforcement works under many social and political pressures to quickly apprehend suspects. They are typically granted leeway to stop violence by almost almost any means necessary. Errors abound. Lives get upended. The innocent get arrested. Once arrested, the accused are typically assumed to be guilty. And often found guilty erroneously. "We know without doubt that the vast majority of innocent defendants who are [wrongly] convicted of crimes are never identified and cleared." - Samuel Gross, editor of the  National Registry of Exonerations  as reported in 2015 in the  Washington Post . When no corroborating evidence is necessary for a conviction , as in my case, this trusted system can destroy many innocent lives, along with the family and communities that depend upon them. These too often include vulnerable families and communities, such as people of color and LGBTQ+ members, who can be easy prey for the biases built into the adversarial process. Other types of damaging errors abound. Official misconduct. Junk science. Witness misidentifiation. Jailhouse snitch. Coerced confession. Insufficient defense. Tunnel vision of investigators. Confirmation bias. And much more, all privileged by taking a hardened adversarialist approach. Once convicted, it can be next to impossible to reverse a miscarriage of justice. The prosecutor holds all the cards, and often resists reviewing and reversing wrongful convictions like when trying to maintain their high conviction rate. Innocence litigators work within this system. Their job and career depend upon them playing along with this adversarial paradigm. They too can fall prey to its built-in biases. The volume of viable claims of innocence overwhelms the meager resources of innocence projects to review them all. Many local innocence projects favor cases they can envision being easier to reverse the faulty conviction in court. If your viable claim of innocence is not one of these low hanging fruit, you could languish in prison or worse for decades. Each innocence project screens claims according to a tight set of criteria. For example, some only review cases where DNA evidence can be accessed. Not every innocence claim involves DNA. When it does, the sample may be lost or too degrated for testing. In short, thousands of innocent people languish in prison, and after prison remain trapped without all of their rights, simply because we as a society put all of our eggs into the adersarialist basket. It's objectively wrong to oppose inflexible needs. If operating under the same paradigm as the adversarial legal system, then the wrongly convicted innocent could accuse all those complicitly supporting such adversarialism. They could indict all toxic adversarialists for ripping society apart—both with the judiciary and with polarizing politics . Having tasted the poison of toxic legalism , the wrongly convicted innocent understandably yearn for something better. Need-response presents itself as a viable alternative. It replaces failing adversarialism with love-nurturing mutuality. Instead of objectifying individuals according to impersonal laws, it prioritizes the needs for which laws arguably exist to serve . Instead of offering relief from the pain of violence, it aims to remove cause for pain by resolving needs on all sides to any conflict. It heralds the higher standard of love , of honoring the needs of others as one's own. Here are just some of the reasons to be discouraged, disenchanted and disillusioned with the Innocence Project , and with the wider innocence movement . "Here are some common pain points felt by those disillusioned with the innocence movement” according to ChatGPT. Then check how need-response can be the answer. Response 1 “Those disillusioned with the innocence movement often cite [these] pain points.”   1.1  Misplaced Resources “Critics argue that the focus on innocence over broader criminal justice reform draws resources and attention away from addressing systemic issues, such as wrongful convictions due to procedural errors, poor representation, or prosecutorial misconduct—even when defendants aren't strictly ‘innocent’." Need-response takes a more holistic view of our underserved justice and other needs. Need-response addresses the structural glitches that not only repeatedly produce wrongful convictions, but fails to address the inflexible needs  of all adjudicated persons. It challenges the legitimacy of the adversarial criminal judicial system that objectifies and depersonalizes human beings ostensibly for public order but also for its own institutional gain. The wrongly convicted innocent sits at the tip of the iceberg of what anankelogy identifies as toxic legalism , which rarely helps crime victims to resolve their needs. Instead of serving the law as proxy for societal needs, need-response prioritizes those inflexible needs, recognizing how social order can then nobly fall naturally into place and result in improved wellness for all. 1.2  Exclusion of Non-Innocent Defendants “There is frustration that the movement largely focuses on individuals who are completely exonerated, leaving those who may have received unfair trials or disproportionately harsh sentences without advocacy.” Need-response challenges public misconceptions about prisoners. Need-response cites research estimating rates of wrongful convictions , which suggests that current exonerations barely skim the surface of this overlooked tragedy. While lauding support for exonerees, need-response sheds light on the scope of the problem if all wrongly convicted souls were suddenly released without adequate supports. Need-response debunks the popular misconception that all prisoners claim innocence—they don’t. When grieving the loss of their freedom when first arrested, they naturally go through shock and denial. Their defense lawyer will encourage them to deny the harshest charges to save space for a plea deal. But once they land in prison, most admit to the harm they regrettably caused. Only about 15% assert actual innocence , close to some estimated rates of wrongful conviction. Most prisoners rightly complain how their harsh sentences tend to serve the questionable interests of those invested in penal structures more than the societal interests of justice. 1.3  Pressure to Prove Complete Innocence “Requiring defendants to meet a high bar of absolute innocence can overlook those with complex cases where errors in their trials might have impacted verdicts, but conclusive exoneration is challenging to prove.” Need-response questions the innocence of any legal process impeding justice needs. Need-response provides wrongful conviction claimants  with a form they can fill out that correlates their case to those already exonerated. Instead of relying on the judicial guilt-innocence binary, the form automatically estimates a degree of viability for the claimant’s case. If not effectively utilized by the legal process, need-response publicizes the case outside of the adversarial guilt-innocence binary process. Then challenges the legitimacy of any judicial official—including innocence denying prosecutors—who resists this empirically based path toward just outcomes. This can include suspension of funding revenue, as it becomes unethical for officials to coerce taxpayers to fund their empirically evil  actions. 1.4  Selective Advocacy “Some believe that the innocence movement’s ‘narrative-driven’ approach—prioritizing cases that appeal to public sympathy or that make for compelling media—creates inequality, as it often overlooks cases that may not be as sensational.” Need-response seeks to craft a compelling narrative for each unexonerated innocent. Need-response seeks to utilize artificial intelligence to craft a compelling narrative for each viable case of wrongful conviction. And potentially for any adjudicated case with questionable outcomes. Need-response prioritizes inflexible needs  over arbitrary laws. Including the neglected justice needs of all overlooked by an impersonal legal system or media system improperly incentivized to champion some cases but not all. In the process, need-response creates a narrative for how judicial officials can better serve overlooked justice needs to earn legitimacy , or risk losing the legitimacy to be trusted to serve their communities. 1.5  Influence on Public Perception “By focusing on wrongful convictions only in clear cases of innocence, the movement may reinforce the misconception that errors in the system are rare or that most people in prison are guilty, despite evidence of broader flaws.” Need-response illuminates the problems baked into the adversarial judicial approach. Need-response invites innocence claimants to fill out a copy of the Estimated Innocence Form and post the results online. Eventually, need-response may provide space to spotlight these viable innocence cases . Publicizing these cases outside of lawyer-led entities can move us beyond the popular bias that ignores the commonality of wrongful convictions. These cases can reinforce available research  estimating up to hundreds of thousands of wrongful convictions. Illuminating this problem can help the public appreciate how the overlooked magnitude of this problem of toxic legalism  equally threatens them. Set in the larger populous frame challenging elite narratives, need-response challenges responsible leaders to help transform social structures currently enabling repeated errors. They earn greater legitimacy the more they can inspire greater personal and collective responsiveness to everyone’s over-adjudicated needs. 1.6  Neglect of Broader Criminal Justice Reforms “Some argue that a narrow focus on innocence overshadows issues like mass incarceration, racial disparities, and prison reform, which impact a broader group of defendants who may not be innocent but face deeply unjust circumstances.” Need-response includes the needs of all negatively impacted by failed adversarialism. Need-response addresses the structural glitches that not only repeatedly produce wrongful convictions, but fails to address the inflexible needs  of all adjudicated persons. It challenges the legitimacy of the adversarial criminal judicial system that objectifies and depersonalizes human beings, ostensibly for public order but also for its own institutional gain. The wrongly convicted innocent sits at the tip of the iceberg of what anankelogy  identifies as toxic legalism , which rarely helps crime victims to resolve their needs. Focusing on inflexible needs unpacks the problems fueling mass incarceration, racial disparities, and other contributors to poor justice outcomes of both defendants and accusers. Instead of serving the law as a trusted proxy for societal needs, need-response prioritizes those inflexible needs. It recognizes how social order can then fall naturally into place and result in improved wellness for all. 1.7  Limited Systemic Change “There is a perception that the innocence movement often pursues individual exonerations without pushing as strongly for systemic policy changes, which limits its long-term impact on preventing future wrongful convictions.” Need-response puts individual cases in context of systemic problems to fix. Need-response holds public judicial officials accountable to just outcomes. It sets a standard higher than law: improved wellness outcomes  of all. Convicting violent individuals is not enough; address the internal and external contributors  to violence. Punishment is insufficient; support all to resolve their unmet needs to nullify cause for desperate acts of violence. Along the way, need-response supports transformative changes  like innocence commissions  and any other systemic adjustment to get to the core of problems that legal systems of adversarial justice and divisive politics are not effectively equipped to address. Until the rates of wrongful convictions measurably declines from independent observation, the personal and professional legitimacy of each judicial official shall steadily decline. 1.8  Moral Judgments “The emphasis on ‘innocent’ defendants can imply a moral hierarchy, placing the value of innocence above principles like fair treatment, just trials, or proportional sentencing, which may alienate those who advocate for these broader principles.” Need-response asserts the objective morality  of inflexible needs over flexible laws. Need-response heralds the higher standard of properly resolving everyone’s inflexible needs . Exonerating the innocent is not the end but rather the first step in resolving deeper problems embedded in the legalistic criminal judicial system. Wrongly convicted myself , I quickly recognized how my innocence couldn’t alienate me from fellow prisoners with questionable cases of their own. For example, the guy serving a life sentence for a murder committed by another he barely knew, who was granted a lighter sentence for serving as a witness against him. Need-response applies a higher standard .  The more resistant to this higher standard of measurable morality , the more such judicial officials paint themselves into a corner as just another set of self-righteous self-serving offenders. It is now easier for the accused to admit their human errors than for police and prosecutors to admit theirs. How many are wrongly convicted in the US? Click to explore the estimated prevalence of wrongful convictions. Response 2 “The innocence movement, aimed at exonerating wrongly convicted individuals, has had major successes in reversing wrongful convictions and reforming aspects of the justice system. However, some supporters and former advocates have expressed disillusionment with the movement, citing various pain points. Here are some of the primary issues and frustrations often mentioned.”   2.01  Narrow Focus on Actual Innocence “Some feel the innocence movement focuses too narrowly on cases where individuals are clearly innocent, often neglecting cases with legal or procedural errors that don't definitively establish innocence but may still merit exoneration.” Need-response addresses all inflexible needs impacted by failed adversarialism. Need-response covers all power relations within and outside the adversarial judicial process. It challenges the ingrained shortcomings of its legalistic approach, which often neglects the needs that laws exist to serve. And it puts all on equal footing for impactful actions that objectively damages other’s lives. Instead of narrowly focusing on the social construct of “crime”, all acts of violence are addressed—especially those privileged by law. Including the violence of prosecutors abusing the state’s exclusive claim to violence. Those seeking exoneration but denied for technical reasons can point to the damaging violence of the process failing to serve the empirically measurable interests of justice. Which need-response links to resolving needs without hindering others from resolving theirs. After addressing legal exonerations, need-response addresses excessively harsh sentences and other unjust outcomes of an impersonal legal process failing to resolve the public’s justice needs. The more the legal process hinders resolving justice needs of anyone, the more need-response challenges its legitimacy and presents a viable alternative. Failure to pursue in good faith a just alternative could spell the end of the legalistic adversarial justice approach as we now know it. 2.02 Lack of Attention to Broader Criminal Justice Reform “Critics argue that the movement sometimes misses the bigger picture, focusing on individual cases rather than addressing systemic issues such as police misconduct, prosecutorial overreach, racial bias, or sentencing disparities.” Need-response addresses both the big picture and the many details shaping it. Need-response prioritizes psychosocial wellness , which integrates internal and external impacts on wellbeing. It links individual changes with systemic societal changes. Rather than seeking legal reforms that risk perpetuating the familiar problematic legalism , need-response gets to the core of the needs that laws exist to serve . It incentivizes us to shift from relying upon legal structures to mutually engage each other’s affected needs. In other words, a marriage between the big picture and the minutia shaping that scene. The more effectively we resolve each other’s needs, systemic problems  can naturally take care of themselves. 2.03  Resource Allocation and Prioritization “Since resources are limited, only certain cases are taken on, often the ones most likely to succeed in court. This leaves many who might have strong claims of innocence without any help, which some advocates feel is unfair and limits the movement's reach.” Need-response automatically calculates the viability of all claims of innocence. Need-response aims to publicize all cases of injustice adjudicated in the name of justice. Along the way, it may expose the adversarial approach as a systemic failure. This starts with all innocence claimants posting a summary of their case to our platform . Claimants fill out a form that automatically calculates the viability of their innocence by comparing their case to those already exonerated. It generates a number pointing to the viability of the innocence claim. The innocence movement can use such data to attract resources to process far more cases. Claimants then defy stereotypes by identifying their respect for the needs of any accuser, and even show empathy for errant law enforcement. The public can then realize how easier it is for the falsely accused to admit to their imperfections than for law enforcement institutions and lawyers to admit to theirs. If the slow-motion legal process cannot keep pace with the need for just outcomes, need-response may step in to challenge their legitimacy as the only provider for just outcomes. 2.04  Dependency on New Evidence or DNA Testing “Many wrongful convictions don’t involve DNA evidence, yet DNA has become a primary tool in innocence cases. Critics argue that this emphasis marginalizes cases where DNA isn't available or relevant, making it harder to address other types of wrongful convictions.” Need-response examines all wrongful convictions along with incentives to deny them. Need-response addresses all cases of manifest injustice in the name of justice. While appreciating how exculpatory DNA evidence initiated the innocence movement, need-response takes this shift to scientific accountability to a much greater level. It exposes the adversarial legal system’s many self-serving biases that the scientific method exists to check. Instead of going down the rabbit hole of what best serves institutions of law, need-response process cases to accountably resolve all justice needs. Rather than rely upon a handful of investigators to review a handful of low-hanging-fruit cases to possibly find something to reverse a conviction in some impersonal court of law, need-response challenges the judiciary’s legitimacy to stonewall any case with an estimated score of likely innocence. Need-response checks all violence. Those who personally and professionally benefit from the massive violence of unprocessed wrongful convictions risk being exposed as far worse than hated criminals. Criminals hurt a few people; these institutionalists who repeatedly fail to deliver just outcomes hurt all of society, much the way terrorists do. 2.05  Challenges in Securing Post-Release Support “After exoneration, many individuals struggle with reintegration, dealing with trauma, finding employment, and housing, often with limited support from the innocence organizations. The lack of post-release assistance leaves many exonerated individuals in difficult situations, especially without access to reparations.” Need-response unpacks the legally privileged barriers to serve underserved needs. Need-response addresses all needs affected by the impersonal legal process. Need-responders can support growing efforts to better serve exonerees. But also address the overlooked needs of wrongly convicted innocents released from custody and prevented from fair housing and meaningful employment due to an unexonerated wrongful conviction. They too require integration, processing trauma, securing employment and housing, and more. And they’re denied any prospect for compensation. Need-response illuminates the full scale of not only this problem, but every social and personal problem provoked by toxic legalism . By directly serving the needs laws exist to serve, but legal institutions routinely fail to deliver, need-response aims to improve the wellness of all involved. And challenged the legitimacy of any person or institution failing to keep pace with such positive outcomes. 2.06  Difficulty Addressing Systemic Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct “Some feel that the movement doesn't do enough to hold law enforcement or prosecutors accountable for misconduct, as organizations may avoid directly antagonizing these powerful institutions to maintain cooperation for future cases.” Need-response incentivizes adversarial law enforcement to improve quality. Need-response sits outside the adversarial legal process. Need-responders generally lack the implicit conflict of interest stifling innocence lawyers. Need-response incentivizes law enforcement officials and prosecutors to shift from an adversarial relation to a mutual relation. We affirm each other’s inflexible needs . We affirm the recognizable needs of both accused and accusers. We hold all accountable to measurable wellness improvements. With this higher standard of mutual regard , need-response can address the mission creep of judicial institutions that pulls it away from prioritizing justice needs to prioritize serving itself. The more need-response can produce wellness improvements by enabling more needs to resolve, the less the public can be manipulated to trust that our legal system is doing all that it can. It can do better, and it must. Or we may have to hold all revenue sources accountable to the poor outcomes that they passively fund. We can all work together to nurture our institutions to be more accountably responsive to our many inflexible needs. 2.07  Media-Driven Perception and Sensationalism “High-profile innocence cases often drive public perception, but they sometimes don’t reflect the average wrongful conviction case. Critics say this sensationalized approach may create an overly optimistic view of the process, misleading the public on how common wrongful convictions are and how hard they are to overturn.” Need-response exposes the magnitude of the problem of wrongful convictions. Need-response aims to publicize on our platform all viable innocence claims. Anyone can download the Estimated Innocence Form , fill it out and upload it for this purpose. There could be tens of thousands of these unexonerated with compelling innocence claims. Each profile could provide a picture of the claimant, a one-line summary of their compelling claim, along with some key highlights and other helpful info. Most importantly, each profile would feature the viability score from their “ Estimated Innocence Report ” from the uploaded form. Anyone agreeing to the site’s Terms of Use can view these profiles in more detail. Most cases likely include the many roadblocks toward judicial review, including the reluctance of under-resourced innocence projects declining to provide legal help. Each case could be summarized in an AI-generated video short. Media outlets could use these to inform the public of the massive scope of this underreported problem. Or risk getting accused of being complicitly silent about it. 2.08  Psychological Toll on Advocates and Supporters “Those who work on innocence cases often experience secondary trauma from exposure to the details of wrongful convictions and the trauma of exonerated individuals. This emotional burden can lead to burnout, disillusionment, and feelings of helplessness, especially when facing slow progress and systemic resistance.” Need-response spreads the effort to a support team independent of adversarialism. Need-response operates as a mutual support network. Cases get reviewed collectively instead of individually, providing mutual support for processing any traumatizing details. Not only for those processing such cases, but also for the claimants having to revisit such details. This process mitigates emotional hazards by offering an alternative to the very system at the source of the harm. Instead of bending the knee to the court’s failed adversarial approach, need-response authorizes the higher standard of addressing all the affected needs for which authority exists to serve. Any viable case of innocence not successfully litigated impeaches the legitimacy of the sluggish adversarial judicial process. The more innocence activists feel frustrated by systemic resistance, the more drawn to go above and beyond this toxic legalism  to identify and resolve overlooked justice needs. By any legitimate means necessary. 2.09  Emphasis on "Perfect Victims" for Exoneration “Some feel there is a bias towards clients who fit a specific narrative or image that is easier to ‘sell’ to courts, the media, and the public, which can leave out individuals with complicated pasts or cases that are less straightforward.” Need-response shifts the narrative to expose how the legal system threatens us all. Need-response shifts the emphasis from individual cases to the sheer volume of cases. While some individual cases may grab an audience easier than others, the mass number of overlooked cases serves as a clarion call in itself. Including cases of relatable human drama. For example, a case where a desperate act led to calling the police, arresting someone accused of stealing something not stolen, ignoring conciliatory options, coercing a false confession resulting in a wrongful conviction, satisfying the conviction count of a local prosecutor, and innocent young children no longer seeing their father except for the occasional prison visit and who no longer trust such biased authorities. Need-response identifies distorting biases built into the adversarial process of not only the judiciary but also of politics and media. Conflict sells, attracts views, get clicks, but rarely leads to solving conflicts. Need-response identifies and addresses the unmet needs resulting in each conflict. The old paradigm for entertaining battles features interpersonal struggles. Need-response offers a new engaging paradigm that pits our unresolved needs against the impersonal social systems that trap us in despairing pain. This new paradigm could offer competitive advantage to media outlets struggling to stay relevant to the public’s needs. 2.10  Slow Pace of Legal Reform “Despite high-profile exonerations, legal reforms to prevent wrongful convictions are often slow and uneven across jurisdictions, leading to frustration among advocates who see the same types of errors and injustices occurring repeatedly.” Need-response competes with the legal process to improve wellness outcomes. Need-response challenges the adversarial politics on par with adversarial justice: to shift from trying to win at another’s expense to trying to forge a win-win solution. To segue from trying to ease own pain to enable all sides to resolve needs, to remove cause for pain. To replace coping with poor consequences with improvement of each other’s wellness. Such a higher standard requires more discipline than adversarial systems. We delay gratifying victories in order to resolve needs. The higher standard conditions professional legitimacy , along with public funding revenue, to improve wellness outcomes by resolving more justice needs. Need-response holds authorities accountable to just outcomes by daring to put our tax liabilities into an escrow account, and releasing it automatically upon an independent demonstration of good faith response to such needs. To put it bluntly, we must not fund evil that stubbornly blocks the good. Improved wellness from resolved needs remains the bottom line. We echo the sentiment ingrained in the U.S. Declaration of Independence: to improve wellness outcomes by resolving underserved justice needs, we pledge our lives. 2.11  Internal Movement Challenges and Fragmentation “As the movement grows, critics say it can feel fragmented, with competing organizations, differing philosophies, and struggles over funding or recognition, which can detract from the unified mission of justice and fairness.” Need-response inspires community by prioritizing each other’s needs over laws. Need-response counters the divisiveness now rampant in modern society. Need-responders  learn to build bridges and develop coalitions to serve underserved needs. As a profession replacing adversarialism with mutual regard , it incentivizes cooperation over competition. With its unique revenue generating model , it is less vulnerably dependent on foundations or other public funding sources. Need-responders earn recognition, and added pay, by measurably improving the wellness level of clients. Moreover, the bottom line of improved wellness outcomes of all has a way or anchoring each other to the same cause, to the same unified pursuit. This alone has a strange way of checking mission creep, to keep all focused on delivering outcomes that prioritizes underserved justice needs. 2.12  Entrenched Social Structures “These pain points often stem from the deep complexities of addressing wrongful convictions within the legal system, but they also reflect the broader challenges inherent in any reform movement working to shift entrenched structures.” Need-response aims to transform social structures to be more responsive to us all. Need-response offers a refreshing alternative to the built-in traps of adversarial justice. Rather than prioritizing laws, need-response prioritizes the needs that laws exist to serve. That includes the need to exonerate every wrongly convicted innocent person with or without the help of the law. While no one sits above the law, no law sits above the needs it exists to serve . And anyone or any entity trying to put laws or authority above inflexible needs  expose themselves as a dangerous threat far worse than the average criminal. These “ legalists ” provoke plenty of disillusionment with the legal process, including the innocence movement. Need-response recognizes this as a structural problem  fueled by all those too close to the problems to realize the damage they cause. Need-response identifies and redresses each of these common pain points to outperform the judicial system in serving our underserved justice needs. It incentivizes emerging leaders to change not merely individuals or laws but to transform constraining social norms with the power of love . How many are wrongly convicted each year? Click to explore the estimated incidence in the US. Need-response to the rescue Need-response addresses the problem of overlooked wrongful convictions  in two phases. The first attempts to improve innocence claim forms used by innocence projects. The second moves beyond the adversarial legal process itself to address the affected needs on all sides. 1) Estimated Innocence This first step offers an estimated score of likely innocence, by comparing the innocence claim to those cases already exonerated. Since its creation, academic Carrie Leonetti , of the University of Auckland School of Law, has published a similar innocence checklist . The innocence claimant downloads an Estimated Innocence Form . After filling it out with the details of the case, they see it will automatically produce an Estimated Innocence Report with a score of viable innocence, and a quick summary of the compelling nature of the claim. You can find this form for innocence claimants right here. This form is also offered to innocence litigators here. You can find this form filled out by the author right here. Estimated innocence of Steph Turner when compared to already exonerated cases: 92% chance of likely innocence. Synopsis Asexual person comes out as trans in early 90s. Is spiritually compelled to transcend polarizing differences to resolve needs. Nonconformity results in being falsely accused as a “sexual predator” homophobic stereotype. Convicted without evidence. Must register as sex offender for life. Forced into poverty and homelessness. Rejected cornerstone. Highlights No other criminal history Consistently maintained innocence, took no plea deals Transphobic investigation and prosecution Convicted without corroborating evidence Climate of sex abuse hysteria Media sensationalized coverage Exculpatory evidence overlooked with untested DNA Spiritual compulsion to resolve needs at odds with judicial system Tagline            Asexual "transspirit" registered for life as a sex offender           But what if the innocence claimant, with a high viability score, still cannot get their wrongful conviction reversed in a court of law? Need-response then asserts the higher authority of properly resolved needs. 2) Responsive Innocence Need-response goes beyond asserting innocence by addressing all the affected needs on each side of a conflict. Need-response incentivizes the innocence claimant to transcend the imposing limits of the adversarial approach to respond directly to each others' needs. Only need-response links the purpose of any law to accountably measure the actual outcomes of its application and enforcement. Mutual respect resolves more needs than mutual defensiveness . This provides innocence claimants underserved by the legal process to then challenge the limits of the adversarial approach. This offers a mutuality alternative much more responsive to each side's needs. Laws themselves to not resolve needs; we do . You can find the empty form here. You can find this form filled out by the author right here. You can get to the meat of this responsive alternative by reading the responses to these three key items. 1. Empathize with what the complainant actually needed at the time "I sense she presented a personal struggle with her own emerging sexuality as same-sex attracted. She later came out as lesbian. She appears to be drawn to my transgender sister as someone openly being herself in a way she likely wish she could be. Or at least drawn to explore what this could all mean for her, at a time when LGBTQ+ people were largely marginalized by mainstream society and not readily accepted at home. When caught not at home when confronted by her mother, she could not say that she willingly interacted with such a "deviant" in the neighborhood."   2. Identify your own affected needs from the incident. "My dominant need at the time was to come out as transgender without being smeared with popular transphobic or homophobic tropes, such as the widespread belief that we're more inclined to pedophilia than cisgender and straight males. To not be falsely accused of sexual misconduct but instead be accepted as an asexual (demisexual) person. Once accused, to have the preponderance of evidence favoring my innocence to show that I am not guilty of what I am not capable of doing. Once wrongly convicted, to be exonerated. Once sentenced to lifetime sex offender registration, to be removed from that listing with prejudice. Ultimately, to have legal recourse in a system less adversarial and based more on mutually addressing the affected needs on all sides to a conflict."   3. How would you address complainant’s apparent needs if you had the chance? "If the law would allow it, I would affirm her same-sex attraction. And tell her that I do not personally hold any animosity toward her. I hold no grudge against her for falsely accusing me of things I am not capable of doing. I understand her need at the time to not be out to her mother or to her homophobic-presenting stepfather. I understand her motive to accuse my sibling and then me to avoid getting into trouble by her irate mother, when her mother demanded to know why she was not at home when her mother came home from work. I understand how she was incentivized by the homophobia of the time, that prompted her to shift the spotlight onto us and to then see how the adults would react to other LGBTQ+ people like herself. I appreciate how the reaction toward us would keep her in the proverbial closet for a long time." back-to-top