Innocence Claim Forms
comparing legalistic claim forms with need-responsive claim forms
Currently, each innocence movement entity provides their own particular innocence claim form. Whether they call it a case questionnaire, claim submission form, application for assistance, or pre-screen application, each current option leaves the claimant in the dark. Should innocence claimants be content with this current legalistic system?
If disillusioned with the legalistic shortcomings of the current system, you are invited to explore our more responsive "estimated innocence form". And if you find it more promising than current options, we invite you (the innocence claimant or their proxy supporter) to introduce this alternative to your chosen innocence project or conviction integrity unit.
Standard Claim Form
Focused on the legal system
Each innocence project and conviction integrity unit have the claimant fill out their multi-page case questionnaire. The claimant likely feels retraumatized while revisiting the nightmare details. But to keep hope alive, they endure the agony. They send it in and wait. Weeks or months later, they often get the disappointing news that their particular case cannot be served. Rince and repeat.
Estimated Innocence Form
Focused on affected needs
Need-response shifts the focus away from serving the law to serving affected needs. And turns from abstract legal constructs to empirical data that can be scientifically tested. Instead of waiting on lawyers, it provides an immediate calculation of the claim's viability. Furthermore, this need-responsive process invites broad support for demonstrated innocence prior to any court review..
OR
Which form would serve you better?
text
STANDARD CLAIM FORM
Pros & cons of a standard claim form
offers an opaque process for slowly processing paper claim forms
remains vulnerable to innocence deniers overlooking caged innocence
risks retraumatizing the innocent when objectified to meet legal needs
perpetuates a corrupted system privileged to avoid its core problems
provides a definitive path toward exoneration
currently only established form for processing claims
We invite innocent projects and conviction integrity units to incorporate this alternative into their online intake forms. Their triage process may refer their most difficult cases to our need-response alternative. If their “litigation” options fail to serve an innocent person’s justice needs, we raise the bar with our “resolution” approach. Verified innocence shall not accept any court’s neglect.
ESTIMATED INNOCENCE FORM
Pros & cons of the estimated innocence form
offers a transparent process of promptly evaluating claim’s viability
demonstrates innocence on merits of case available for public scrutiny
minimizes risks of retraumatization by prioritizing claimant’s needs
introduces an alternative that aims to serve needs overlooked by the law
until tried and tested, this remains an uncertain path toward exoneration
not yet established way for processing innocence claims
You will find this alternative packed with potential to transform our current disappointing legalistic options to more need-responsive options. Click through each image to check out its twelve aims. Click on its "Go to link" to learn more how the EIF can serve your needs.
LITIGATION PATH
Trust authorities to responsibly apply law
Seeking exoneration through the established legal process expects you to trust the same adversarial process guilty of repeatedly failing to identify and correct its type I errors. Must you trust the guilty to recognize your lack of guilt? With its many conflicts of interest and legalistic blind spots, it cannot faithfully provide what it does not have to give to the wrongly convicted innocent. But for now, it is the only show in town.
RESOLUTION PATH
Trust ourselves to responsibly address needs
Need-response starts not with impersonal laws but with the needs laws exist to serve. It sees the affected needs of victims of violence as equal to the affected needs of the accused. It recognizes the institutional needs of legal systems only as legitimate as they faithfully apply to justice needs. And if producing empirically measurable results satisfying justice needs of the people for which the judiciary exists.
Which approach would serve you better?
We invite the underserved innocent to explore this pioneering alternative to innocence litigators paper forms. Instead of waiting for the slow legal process to admit its error, this alternative immediately provides the claimant with a sharable "Certificate of Verifiable Innocence" to keep the process transparent. See an example here.
RESOLUTION PATH
Pros & cons of relying on the resolution path
open to all with Internet access to democratically engage in process
invites you to directly respect each other’s personal needs over legalistic institutions' needs
identifies and addresses peoples’ specific needs, which can increase overall functioning
disinfecting sunlight of exposing any barriers to fully resolving each other’s affected needs
uncertain path toward exoneration
not yet established way for challenging wrongful convictions
The EIF serves as a gateway to identify and address each other's specific needs easily overlooked by law. Without this proper accountability for impacted needs, the power of legalistic institutions risk serving its own needs at the expense of the populations it exists to serve.
Need-response fills the service gaps left open by our adversarial judicial approach. The more our conciliatory alternative can better identify and address justice needs, the greater its qualified legitimacy to serve the innocent. We can then help innocence litigators to improve their legitimacy. We do that by improving their measurable responsiveness to the needs of the wrongly convicted innocent.
The wrongly convicted innocent rarely put themselves in a position to oppose the complainant or the state, but this adversarial stance gets imposed upon them by the state. Litigating for exoneration risks repeating the errors created by such an unloving oppositional stance. Where their litigation fails to clear the actually innocent, we will resolve wrongful convictions by the power of love. Any resisters to such love risk losing their legitimacy to remain in power. We do not need their permission to breathe! Love, or get out!
Adversarial Process
Mitigate conflicts by relieving pain
Court battles divide participants into winners and losers. At best, the adjudicated winner gets to ease their pain at the loser’s expense. Pursuing such legal remedies to correct a miscarriage of justice can drag you down to their morally dubious level. You risk complicity in a problematic process that serves law and power over the needs of the accuser and wrongly accused. Both get robbed of their full potential.
Conciliatory Process
Resolve conflicts by resolving needs
Need-response asserts the higher moral standard of love. Instead of settling for mutual hostilities, you engage each other’s need in a conciliatory process of mutual respect. You identify and address the affected needs of the accuser and others involved. You hold them to the standard of identifying and addressing your affected needs. Instead of waiting for them to admit your innocence, you demonstrate it for all to see.
Which process would serve you better?
OR
ADVERSARIAL PROCESS
The more we put needs above laws that exist to serve needs, the more we hold the judiciary accountable when slipping into serving itself at the expense of its founding purpose. We shall repudiate the selfishness it models to us. We raise the standard for addressing wrongful convictions from the current incompetence of the mere legalistic approach. We demonstrate the power of love to resolve needs exists as a greater authority than the power of laws or the power of the state. The more needs we identify and resolve with love, the better we can all function and not suffer as much pain. How much is our innocence worth to you?
CONCILIATORY PROCESS
Pros & cons of trusting a conciliatory process
conciliatory process engages parties as experiencing inflexible needs in apparent conflict with each other
parties in conflict are humanized as having inflexible needs, enabling all sides to shift from hostilities to mutual understanding and respect
win-win approach: justice by all sides resolving needs over placating pain
removing pain of all involved by enabling all sides to resolve needs and reach more of their life’s potential
until tried and tested, this remains an uncertain path toward exoneration
not yet established process for serving justice needs
The more responsive to our verified innocence, the more lawyers can earn the legitimacy to serve the innocent. The less responsive to our verified innocence, the more this need-responsive conciliatory process can emerge as more competent than adversarial legalistic institutions.
Pros & cons of relying on the standard path
limited largely to legal experts with little if any inputs from those affected
expects you to trust the same process making errors to admit & correct its destructive errors
reduces people into objectifying legal categories, which can reduce overall functioning
vulnerable to court’s presenting conflicts of interest, such as their cyclic trap of false accusations
currently provides the only definitive path toward exoneration
currently only established path for challenging wrongful convictions
Pros & cons of trusting the adversarial process
adversarial process oversimplifies parties as mutual combatants to serve its own processing needs
parties in conflict get dehumanized to serve needs of institutional law, effectively perpetuating the parties’ pain for the law’s own benefit
win-lose approach: justice to winner in court battle at loser’s expense
easing pain for winner risks leaving us all in pain, preventing us from reaching our life’s full potential
currently provides the only definitive path toward exoneration
currently only established process for serving justice needs
OR
If the litigation approach fails to clear the actually innocent, the resolution alternative fills this service gap with mutual respect for needs. Litigation remains packed with distorting biases, as it imposes an adversarial climate that puts selfishness over respect for others. Resolution seeks to resolve all the needs involved in a conflict. Litigation provokes mutual hostilities, anger and hate. Resolution nurtures our potential for mutual respect, acceptance and love.
The more we rely on the adversarial process, the more we exaggerate our differences and avoid addressing each other’s needs. Innocence gets easily left in the dark. The more we shift to a conciliatory process, the more of our needs can be addressed and resolved. Innocence rises to greater awareness and resolution.
LITIGATION PATH
Is this solution right for you?
Who is ready, willing and able to adopt need-response over institutional legalism? Where do you fit in the "adoption curve" for helping to transform society's response to wrongful convictions?
1. Are you, or a loved one, wrongly convicted and actually innocent? (I.e., Does our need-responsive solution speak to your problem?)
No – “No, but I am interested in helping the wrongly convicted innocent.”
Yes – “Yes, I am innocent of all charges, or my loved one is innocent of all charges.”
2. Have you asked for help from an innocence project or conviction integrity unit and found them unhelpful? (I.e., Are you experientially aware of the problem we are trying to solve?)
No – “No, I have not, or I have and found them helpful.”
Yes – “Yes, I am disappointed and frustrated with their lack of service to my viable innocence claim.”
3. Are you open to exploring an alternative to the legalistic adversarial judicial system? (I.e., Is this problem enough of a priority for you to solve that you are ready to consider alternatives?)
No – “No, I will continue to trust the established legal system for eventual exoneration.”
Yes – “Yes, I am open to learning more about this different approach toward exoneration.”
4. Are you ready to experiment with a pioneering alternative to the legalistic adversarial judicial system? (I.e., Are you still seeking some solution to this persisting problem?)
No – “No, I have effectively given up hope that I, or my loved one, will ever be officially exonerated.”
Yes – “Yes, I am willing to experiment with this different approach toward exoneration.”
If you replied ‘yes’ to each of these first four, then please proceed.
5. Select which profile best captures your personality when invited to try something new.
1) “I often take risks to be among the first at trying some exciting new thing, even if it could fail.”
2) “I frequently try new solutions to quickly address old problems, even if it has some glitches.”
3) “I may try some promising new thing once I hear or read that it works well for others.”
4) “I only try some new thing if others first benefit from it and I fear I might be missing out.”
5) “I typically try something new only if I have to because everyone else that I know already has.”
