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?
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.
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.
2. custody population
3. ex-prison population
4. felon population
5. arrested population
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 undermine democracy by skewing power to the state?
Possible judicial outcomes distribute evenly along a continuum, from the error of impunity where the guilty go free to the miscarriage of justice where the innocent are locked up. Using the distribution curve of statistics, you can hope that most if not all judicial outcomes collect around this optimal center.
In reality, judicial outcomes generally skew toward the right. In our current judicial and political climate, errors of impunity remain rare as wrongful convictions skyrocket.
Decades earlier, sensational media coverage of low-level violence led to the widespread exaggeration that our leaders were being "soft" on violent offenders. With few internal checks on their increasing power, police and prosecutors put their arrest and conviction rates over the public's interests of measurable safety and justice.
Convicting the innocent became collateral damage to their politically privileged war on crime. The rapid increase in the prison population since the fall of the Soviet Union, without an equal rise in crime, exposes how we are basically at war with ourselves. Our elite-led institutions increasingly serve their own interests at the expense of our democratic ideals.
You don't know what you don't know. And you continue to harm innocent lives if your income relies on you not seeing your complicity in this state violence. Consequently, a criminal background check easily becomes the blind leading the blind. Consumer reporting agencies risk being used as tools by elites for undermining the purpose of democracy.
Democracy as "people power" turns now from divisive politics, keeping elites in power at our expense, to more easily and widely accessible tools empowering us to better our lives. CRAs must now decide if they are with the people to accountably serve the public interests of justice, or to remain tied to democracy-compromising institutions destroying our people's lives. Democracy with integrity demands we find a more reliable way to discern between the rightly and wrongly convicted.
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
What if you had a way to reliably discern between the
admittedly guilty and the reputably innocent?
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:
-
Automatically calculates degree of viability, compared to other exoneree cases.
-
Use pseudonym and avatar for public view.
-
Upload image & name for signed supporters to see.
-
Invite supporters to view & verify your claim.
-
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.
.jpg)
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
OPEN online
As of 2018-12-08
NEWC policy:
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
PeopleFacts
As of 2018-12-08
NEWC policy:
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
Consumer reporting agencies
This is a growing list of companies known to provide background checking for employers.
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.