Discriminating against the wrongly convicted

 

If we assume everyone with a felony record is guilty of the crime, then we may be guilty of complicity in the unfolding crisis of wrongful convictions.

 

Does your criminal background check privilege discrimination against the innocent?

Carefully Screening Careless Screening - Value Relating
00:00 / 00:00
Here's the text to Carefully Screening Careless Screening

How well do you trust background checks? Do you treat every felony record the same? Do you rely on the criminal justice system to correct its errors, to provide you accurate information?

Ideally, the criminal justice system will recognize and correct each wrongful conviction. In reality, the criminal justice system currently lacks the structure to process the immense numbers of compelling claims of actual innocence. The demand for professional help to review these convincing claims of innocence far outstrips the meager supply. Innocence Projects remain overwhelmed. They’re kept busy serving innocent prisoners. Most wrongly convicted are now out of prison and fall through the cracks. There could be well over a million wrongly convicted persons in the United States.

We know without doubt,” declares the editor of the National Registry of Exonerations, “that the vast majority of innocent defendants who are [wrongly] convicted of crimes are never identified and cleared.” The current number of exonerations serve only as the visible tip to an immense iceberg of needlessly destroyed lives. You and I can do something while waiting for the courts to eventually correct these costly errors.

In its current structure, the criminal justice system appears unready to admit or deal with the full scope of this crisis. It’s now easier for the accused to admit their human imperfections than for law enforcement and prosecutors to admit theirs. To wait for the criminal justice system to exonerate every wrongly convicted person is to be complicit with the problem. You now have a viable alternative.

This conciliatory approach fills a vastly underserved need. Instead of relying on a simple binary of guilt-or-innocence, you receive an informed estimate between probable guilt to probable innocence, compared to those already exonerated. The higher the score, the higher the likelihood that the claimant is a non-exonerated wrongly convicted (NEWC) person. You deserve to make better informed decisions than what current felony records afford.

Before you fall passively complicit with the enormous problem of wrongful convictions, consider this viable alternative. You may save a life while helping your own.

Thank you.

 

Is this really that big of a problem?

How many are actually wrongly convicted?

Does your criminal background check recognize the alarming scope of wrongful convictions?

If only around 3,000 are wrongly convicted,

is that enough for you to be concerned?

In other words...

The demand for professional help to review these viable claims of innocence far outstrips the meager supply. Innocence Projects remain overwhelmed

Meanwhile, countless lives are being destroyed.

1. prison population

2. custody population

3. ex-prison population

4. felon population

5. arrested population

20K

60K

90K

260K

650K

70-110K

220-340K

320-480K

858K-1.3M

2.1M-3.3M

90K

280K

390K

1M

2.7M

250K

800K

1.13M

3M

7.5M

hidden_magnitude_of_wrongful_convictions

What if there are millions shamed into silence who are rarely if ever heard?

 

Law enforcement must interdict violent perpetrators often under highly stressful circumstances. Along the way, costly mistakes frequently get made. Perhaps the costliest mistake is convicting the wrong person and allowing the actual perpetrator to continue doing harm. 

The Innocence Project identifies six frequent contributors common among cases later cleared by DNA and other methods of exoneration. If a job applicant or housing applicant asserts one or more of these, and can provide it as compelling evidence to how they were wrongly convicted, who dares ignore them?

1. Eyewitness misidentification

Such as victims tasked to recall identifiable features, who are as accurate as you are when struggling to recall details of a car accident.

2. Misapplication of forensic science

Such as burn patterns, bite marks, tire tracks, and such physical "evidence" often presented as if providing more certainty of the accused person's involvement than statistically, scientifically warranted.

3. Government misconduct

Such as police taking "noble cause corruption" shortcuts, based on confirmation bias that seeks evidence to rationalize their theory of guilt  that overlooks the actual perpetrator(s).

4. False confessions or admissions 

Such as coerced confessions using the Reid technique with unethical methods like lying to suspects after hours of interrogation about already having enough physical evidence to convict, scaring the innocent to confess to crime they didn't commit.

5. Jail informant

Such as a cellmate claiming the falsely accused admitted it to them, with the understanding their help can help them get a lighter sentence, and prosecutors dancing around this conflict of interest to try to close the case.

6. Inadequate defense

Such as court appointed attorneys expected to process more cases than they have time and resources to thoroughly process, incentivizing them to tell their clients they best take a plea deal even if they're innocent.

 

It is now easier for the accused to admit to their human imperfections than for police and prosecutors to admit to theirs. It remains easy to deny employment or housing to victims of violence, to further that violence, when that originating violence was perpetrated by the state itself.

 

Does your criminal background check discern between the rightly and wrongly convicted?

If criminal background checks could differentiate between the rightly and wrongly convicted, we could be a long way to alleviating this problem.

First, consider how simple it can be to contrast the rightly convicted and wrongly convicted. Then consider the relatively simple legislation bill below that could make it easier for anyone to make this distinction for themselves. 

Until such legislation is in force. Value Relating is trying a more direct remedy. It offers the wrongly convicted (or proxies on their behalf) to post their viable innocence claim, then automatically calculates the statistical reliability of that claim compared to similar cases already exonerated. More on that below. But now let us ask...

Does your criminal background check discern between the

rightly convicted admittedly guilty

and the

wrongly convicted reputably innocent?

The

rightly convicted

who are

admittedly guilty

The

wrongly convicted

who are

reputably innocent

Usually accept a plea deal to avoid a harsh sentence

Usually refuse any plea deal despite facing a harsh sentence

Waive their right to trial by admitting to some criminality

Assert their right to trial to express their integrity

Easily react defensively to feeling they’re unfairly treated

Long-sufferingly endure the many biased trial proceedings

Builds a reputation as a trouble maker in prison

Builds a reputation as a model prisoner

Usually eligible for parole after showing some remorse

Rarely eligible for parole since unable to “show remorse”

Repeatedly commit crimes

Typically lack a criminal history

 

Informed Decisions Act

Would this piece of pro-business legislation help?

Informed Decisions Act draft bill.png

The demand for professional help to review these viable claims of innocence far outstrips the meager supply. Innocence Projects remain overwhelmed

Until resources catch up to the needs of this crisis, Value Relating provides innocence claimants with a calculated estimate of their likely factual innocence

 

How can we curb discriminating against the wrongly convicted?

with this Innocence Claim Support

FREE:

  1. Check how much compensation you’re eligible for.

  2. Post your viable innocence claim online.

  3. Automatically calculates degree of viability, compared to other exoneree cases

    1. Use pseudonym and avatar for public view.

    2. Upload image & name for signed supporters to see.

    3. Invite supporters to view & verify your claim.

  4. Request our professional support for your claim.

  5. Schedule a FREE online consultation for support.

After the FREE online consultation, progressive pricing for weekly one-on-one support and daily emailed support.

With this support, the wrongly convicted contact consumer reporting agencies (below) who provide criminal background screening for employers and others. These professional screeners hear from the wrongly convicted themselves, to appreciate the depths of this underserved need.

strong compelling claim

good reliable claim

fair equivocal claim

poor disputed claim

weak negated claim

- score 80 - 99

- score 60 - 79

- score 40 - 59

- score 20 - 39

- score 0 - 19

 
 
CRA accurate logo.png

As of 2018-12-08

NEWC policy:

checkr.png

As of 2018-12-08

NEWC policy:

IC-new-logo.png

As of 2018-12-08

NEWC policy:

OPENonline_logo.jpg

OPEN online

As of 2018-12-08

NEWC policy:

PreEmploy_logo.png

As of 2018-12-08

NEWC policy:

American DataBank logo.png

American DataBank

As of 2018-12-08

Be the first to invite American DataBank to our conciliatory approach. Welcome them to our nuanced background check of the non-exonerated wrongly convicted.

NEWC policy

fadv.jpg

As of 2018-12-08

NEWC policy:

Intelius-520x520.jpg

As of 2018-12-08

NEWC policy:

PeopleFacts-200x200.png

PeopleFacts

As of 2018-12-08

NEWC policy:

Sterling_Talent_Solutions_1280x720.jpg

As of 2018-12-08

NEWC policy:

backgroundchecks.com fb logo.jpg

backgroundchecks.com

As of 2018-12-08

Be the first to invite  backgroundchecks.com to our conciliatory approach. Welcome them to our nuanced background check of the non-exonerated wrongly convicted.

NEWC policy

hireright.png

As of 2018-12-08

NEWC policy:

100pt_Intellicorp_S.jpg

As of 2018-12-08

NEWC policy:

peopleg2logo.jpg

peopleG2

As of 2018-12-08

NEWC policy:

TheWorkNumberLogo.jpg

As of 2018-12-08

NEWC policy:

What if I claim you’ve repeatedly used

life-damaging false information?

Your believability gets abused

once I subject you to such allegation.

As soon as my charge gets refused,

your words sound like self-justification.

“Are you saying you’re excused?”

“Sounds like a self-serving rationalization.”

That’s how the credibility of the accused
gets stolen with each accusation.

There are more consumer reporting agencies out there. Suggest one to add here.