.png)
Disillusioned with the innocence movement?
- Steph Turner
- Jan 23
- 22 min read
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...
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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."
Comments