Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld, courtesy of the Innocence Project.
Most Americans are familiar with non-profit organizations like the American Red Cross, the American Cancer association, Saint Jude, Children’s Research Hospital, or the Salvation Army. Every one of these organizations was founded on the principles of generosity, fairness, equality, hope, and love. Collectively they gather millions in donations to make the world better for everyone by helping those most in need. We benefit from these organizations because they respect the latent idealism in all of us—that it doesn't have to be this way and together we can make a difference. But, there is another non-profit that doesn't receive the same fanfare or generosity, and yet, it ostensibly pursues the defense of an equally noble agenda: innocence.
The Innocence Project was founded in 1992 by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld in response to the criminal justice system’s tendency to wrongfully convict and incarcerate innocent people. It may seem absurd that an organization like this needed to come about given the fact that our nation holds itself up to the world as a democratic beacon of freedom, justice and equality. But, we also wouldn't think that children suffering from cancer would need charity from organizations like St. Jude’s just to survive. But unfortunately, “justice” doesn't always mean what it should.
Over the years I have closely followed the litigation efforts of other attorneys associated with the IP like M. Chris Fabricant and Valena Betty, by reading the books and articles published about their exploits. My favorite being, “Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System.” Where Fabricant reveals the systemic nature of the American criminal justice system’s overt tendency to lie, cheat, and otherwise disregard its intended purpose. One of the consequences of this systemic failure being, that innocent people are incarcerated and sometimes executed for crimes they did not commit, where the only reason seems to be that it's too costly and inconvenient to thoroughly investigate, disclose evidence, or adhere to antiquated notions like constitutionality, or the rule of law. And thanks to the Innocence Project’s intervention on behalf of the innocent, the government’s, propensity to lie, cheat, and otherwise disregard the law is exposed. At least, this is the familiar narrative intended to justify its existence. A narrative that has mostly gone unchallenged—until now.
Alfred Swinton with his lawyers Chris Fabricant and Vanessa Potkin, courtesy of Mark Mirko/Hartford Courant via AP
According to the IP's website, in 2022, the organization received $50 million in donations, 34 percent of which came from justice-minded individuals like yourself. The rest came from corporations, (20%), and an annual benefit dinner (12%), foundations, (32%), and the Cardoza School of Law (3%). And, to then learn that such a well-funded organization has only exonerated 196 wrongfully convicted individuals in 31years, the obvious question that comes to mind is, why so few?
There are many alarming studies related to the reality of wrongful convictions in the U.S., but none are as explicit or universally accepted as the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, determining that 4.1% is a “conservative estimate of the proportion of false convictions among death sentences in the United States.” And if we adhere to the reasoning presented in the study and “assume for a moment that the proportion of innocent defendants among all murder convictions is half the rate for death sentences, 2%. That would mean there are about 3,300 innocent defendants among the estimated 165,000 inmates currently in American prisons with murder convictions, plus thousands more among the comparable number of defendants who were convicted of murder in the past 40 years but are not now in prison because they were released or have died.” And, unfortunately, when you find yourself as part of this unlucky minority within so many other minorities the only legitimate avenues for exoneration involve: (a) having a substantial fortune by which to finance a potentially decades-long legal battle; or (b) convince an organization such as the Innocence Project to use their financial resources, expertise, and litigation experience to fight on your behalf.
The report titled “Race and Wrongful Convictions in the United States, 2022,” presents a sobering analysis on the amount of time it takes for someone wrongfully convicted of murder to be exonerated. Apparently, when misconduct by government officials is to blame for the wrongful conviction it takes an average of 17.7 years compared to 12.2 years when no official misconduct is identified. However, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a branch of the U.S. Department of Justice responsible for collecting, analyzing and disseminating reliable statistics on crime and criminal justice in the United States, most wrongful convictions are attributable to the aforementioned misconduct previously cited. Which means, of the estimated 3,300 innocent murder defendants, currently incarcerated, most were intentionally placed there. And, by any metric or measure of the acceptable behavior of government officials (police, prosecutors, and judges), to arrive at an understanding that there is currently an ongoing situation and tragedy where 3,300 individuals are sitting in prison cells somewhere in the United States, ACTUALLY INNOCENT of the murders for which they were convicted, and, that a majority of these individuals were intentionally placed there is not only infuriating—it’s mind blowing!
It’s mind blowing, because this is not some conspiracy theory about the government concealing UFOs, the truth about the Kennedy assassination, or revelation about 9/11. On September 11, 2001 terrorists killed 2,977 Americans and America’s response was to launch a two decade, protracted war with no clear objective and no expense spared. And it stands to reason that if 3,300 American civilians were taken hostage today in Israel by allies of Gaza, the United States would gladly throw itself into another decades long war, in pursuit of some illusory form of retribution or justice. That being said, how is it possible that there has been no presidential speeches, no congregational calls for legislative action, no commercials to raise funds for these victims or their families, and not a word mentioned about justice, as it relates to the men and women civilians currently languishing in American prisons for murders they did not commit?
While discussing this reality of general indifference from politicians and policymakers in the U.S., a problem that is very personal to me, my friend McRoberts had a cynical take on it, “nobody cares about these individuals because nobody sees them. And the people who know about them—the politicians and policymakers—see this 4.1% and think, well, that's the cost of doing business. The business in this case being the enterprise of keeping our communities safe from crime.”
I reminded McRoberts of the famous Justice Blackstone quote (1769), that, “the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, then that 1 innocent suffer (be convicted wrongfully).”
My friend laughed, “yeah, that sounds like what someone in the eighteenth century might have said, but in today's world of social media where everyone has an opinion about everything and feels the need to share it, sentiment like that is too goddamn idealistic, and the thing that social media has brought to the forefront of our collective consciousness is this: 99.99% of the human population does not actively subscribe to the best version of themselves.”
“So what you are saying,” I said, “is that the best version of ourselves would care that there are currently 3,300 innocent people in American prisons for murders they didn't commit.”
“You got it.”
Was my friend right? Is this why police and prosecutors regularly intimidate witnesses, withhold favorable evidence from the defense, lie or misrepresent the facts, horsetrade, utilize junk science, and ultimately ignore the demands of the Constitution? After all, there is no real incentive for morality in their professions. Because at the end of the day they're batting a .960 and their constituents are happy. And those who are unhappy make up such a small percentage of their constituency base, or, are silenced by the reality of their manufactured predicaments.
I admit, this revelation of sorts, if true, is deeply troubling on many levels. Mainly because I still remember who I was before any of this happened. There I was sitting in my corner office with my freshly polished shoes and handmade suit, and the term “wrongful conviction” wasn't even a part of my lexical knowledge, much less something I would care about. Obviously, this isn't who I am today, but, it does make it somewhat hypocritical for me to judge others for the very same behavior emulated by, yours truly, when I was younger. Then again, yours truly, wasn’t a civil servant or holder of a public office. I was a self-centered entrepreneur, and though I now cringe at the thought of who and how I was, it has afforded me some valuable insight and impetus into becoming who I am today. And, accordingly, the man I am today isn’t easily placated or convinced by cheeky statements laced with cynicism.
McRoberts isn't wrong. Most people are happy to know that the police and prosecutors get it right 96% of the time. However, what these same people don't know and need to realize is that these morally bankrupted individuals who occupy these roles of police, prosecutors, and the judiciary aren't just accidentally missing the ball 4.1% of the time.
They are actively hacking the system so as to deceive each and every one of us into believing that the person under arrest and facing trial is the criminal, and, because that determination has been made, any, and every means—legal and illegal—will be employed to convict this individual. Where this narrative brings us is to the logical dénouement of a critical truth: a police officer or prosecutor who either intentionally frames an innocent person, or whose investigative or prosecutorial efforts are so imprecise that that's the defacto outcome, is not making any of us even remotely safer because the individuals who committed these crimes are still at large.
Man's hands gripping bars, courtesy of Pinterest
According to the Innocent Project’s website they receive more than 2,400 letters annually from the potentially innocent and wrongfully convicted. Every year they evaluate a median average of 7,000 cases. And to most, these numbers mean very little for the simple fact that we can't comprehend the complexities of so many cases coupled with the thousands of pages of court and investigative records that seemingly encapsulate each case. Not to mention the cost and delays attached to acquiring these records, which is substantial.
That being said, even with the IP’s careful screening process they report that nearly half of all the cases they take result in affirming the convictions, rather than exonerating the wrongfully convicted. This result, of course, comes about through the DNA testing performed on the latent evidence already existing in the case. And while it is certainly unfortunate that so many convicted individuals, who know perfectly well that they are guilty, waste the IP’s time and resources, we also acknowledge that hope is a powerful motivator regardless of actual guilt or innocence.
Scientifically speaking, DNA evidence is the gold standard as it relates to the reliability of evidence in a criminal trial. Eye witnesses can be mistaken or confused and are known to unintentionally bear false witness. Other forensic evidence like blood splatter analysis, bite mark analysis, or even hair analysis, over the years have been proven unreliable. Which leaves the forensic analysis of genetic information from a biological sample—DNA testing—as the most reliable, scientific forensic tool for identifying who did it in any given crime, if, and only if, said biological sample is actually collected by police in their investigation. This last part being more important than you might think.
DNA, courtesy of Science
Unfortunately, in the vast majority of murder investigations (90%) there are no viable biological samples collected for forensic analysis, despite what dramatized TV shows like NCIS or CSI suggest. And that also means, there is only DNA evidence in less than 10% of homicides. And also means, that if you are innocent and wrongfully convicted and in need of assistance, and the police in your case didn't collect any biological samples (DNA evidence) then you don’t qualify for assistance from the non-profit organization that collected $50 million in donations last year and calls itself the Innocence Project.
The fact that there is an organization that calls itself and collects donations as the “Innocence Project,” but in actuality only represents cases where there is DNA evidence, is like the police deciding to only make arrests in instances where there is video footage. Especially, given the IP’s mission statement: “We work to free the innocent, prevent wrongful convictions, and create fair, compassionate and equitable systems of justice for everyone.”
I am not suggesting that the Innocence Project represent every convicted individual who asserts innocence. I am merely suggesting, that given its mission statement, resources and expertise, that at the very least it should be asking a far more important question than whether there exists DNA evidence in a case, and that question is: is it possible that this individual who is writing us was effectively railroaded by an uncompromising criminal justice system that at no point ever even considered the possibility of his innocence? And if so, are we at the Innocence Project not then morally obligated to unbiasedly investigate this individual’s claims to the best of our abilities before making a decision as to whether or not we will represent him?
Because under the IP’s current modus operandi, they send you an information packet for you to complete, then deliberate for six to eight months, and based on the number of letters they receive and the amount of cases they review in any given year, there exists a statistical probability of 0.0014 that they will represent you, and a probability of half that (0.0007) that they will successfully exonerate you. Now, if we add to these probabilities the fact that only a very small portion of criminal cases actually yield viable DNA evidence, less than 1%, then suddenly the already improbable outcome from above becomes comparable to someone winning the Powerball without ever having purchased a lottery ticket.
And for someone who is innocent, sitting in a prison cell, in most instances cut off from the world and unable to perform any kind of literal investigation for themselves, is not only strenuous its Kafkaesque. To then tell this person to write to the IP to see if they will help is about as realistically helpful as telling someone who has fallen on the subway tracks while a train is seconds away from ending their life to dial 911 for assistance.
To review the entirety of a criminal case, from start to finish, is to quite literally step into Kafka's novel, “The Trial” while simultaneously attempting to stay grounded in the reality of the world we think we live in. But, as we come to find out, like Kafka’s protagonist Josef K., perhaps we don't.
As with most ensuing criminal investigations that follow the event of the crime, my case has all the necessary elements: the pointed finger (accusation); the arrest; the formal charges; some semblance of an investigation; the preliminary trial by the media; typical lawyer shenanigans; a trial and a verdict. But where it became Kafkaesque was in the manner in which the proceedings unfolded: very secretive; vague; contradictory; externally and politically influenced; and most importantly, corrupt.
There is a favorite excerpt of mine from Kafka’s novel where his protagonist Josef K. is attacking the surreality of his predicament. He said, collectively to everyone involved in his surreal proceedings, “There is no doubt that there is some enormous organization determining what is said by this court. In my case this includes my arrest and the examination taking place here today, an organization that employs policemen who can be bribed, oafish supervisors and judges of whom nothing better can be said than that they are not as arrogant as some others. This organization even maintains a high-level judiciary along with its train of countless servants, scribes, policemen and all the other assistance that it needs perhaps even executioners and torturers—I'm not afraid of using those words. And what, gentlemen, is the purpose of this enormous organization? Its purpose is to arrest innocent people and wage pointless prosecutions against them which, as in my case, lead to no result. How are we to avoid those in office becoming deeply corrupt when everything is devoid of meaning? That is impossible, not even the highest judge would be able to achieve that for himself. That is why policemen try to steal the clothes off the back of those they arrest, that is why supervisors break into homes of people they do not know, that is why innocent people are humiliated in front of the crowds rather than being given a proper trial.”
Unfortunately, I have partially lived the experience of Josef K., and I am here to tell you—it doesn't have to be this way.
The attorney-client relationship at the post-conviction stage of being wrongfully convicted is just as infuriating as it is heart wrenching. It usually begins with a phone call, introductions are made, notes are usually taken, vague assurances are involved, and through it all it can appear that there are reasons to hope. But there are certain truths that most attorneys will avoid. Such as, the unavailability of resources for finding new evidence; the general unwillingness of most courts to consider constitutional violations as legitimate reasons for calling a conviction into question; and how unwilling most prosecutors are when it comes to agreeing to analyze certain evidence in their possession if there is even the remotest of possibilities that the results could call into question the legitimacy of the guilty verdict already in place.
In 2019, when it became blatantly apparent that my fight for exoneration was not going to have the benefit of an unbiased court, again the Innocence Project came to mind. A thought encouraged by followers on social media encouraging me to contact both the IP in New York and the Center of Wrongful Convictions (CWC) in Chicago for assistance. But, I was hesitant, because everyone I knew who had reached out to them had shared something similar and repeatedly said, “if you don't have DNA evidence in your case, they won't touch it.” Which I understood to mean: they aren't devoted to helping the wrongfully convicted prove their innocence. But, how could that be?
I was quite literally confounded by the fact, in regards to the Innocence Project, that here was an organization whose mission statement clearly stated that its reason for existing was to assist innocent people, like myself, in their pursuits towards freedom and exoneration. And yet, the lived experience of every single person I knew, who had had the displeasure of interacting with them, was telling me something completely different.
Based on their experience I had no choice but to challenge my beliefs and consider the possibility that although the IP’s mission statement on their charter or articles of incorporation talks about defending innocence, in practice, they only get involved in a minority of cases where DNA is collected. So, I stand by what I previously published: the Innocence Project as an organization, isn't what it seems.
For an organization with their resources, expertise, and litigation experience to intentionally avoid cases where blatant misconduct on the parts of police, prosecutors, judges, and incompetent defense attorneys repeatedly lead to the wrongful convictions of innocent people is in itself a crime.
To my surprise, following the publication of a previous article and mention of the Innocence Project, I received unsolicited letters from both the IP and the CWC. The latter asked for a letter asserting actual innocence which I immediately provided, followed by the information they requested. The situation with the IP, however, played out much differently.
As can be seen from the dates on the two initial letters I received from them (June 2, 2023, and June 5, 2023), they sent me a letter with zero intention of ever helping me. I hadn't even received the first letter, mailed from New York to New Mexico through first class mail, when they issued a second letter denying their assistance because apparently, as they stated, “Our records show that the questionnaire was never sent back to us. Since we cannot look into your case without details about your conviction, we are stopping our review.”
Wow! So let me see if I understand this. Based on the dates of these two letters which were mailed from New York to New Mexico, they waited all of three days for me to get the documents, complete them, and mail them back. If that's what they consider a fair opportunity or a “review,” they should have saved both of our postage expenses—theirs and mine.
Obviously I was bothered by the fact that the Innocence Project, founded by attorneys like Scheck and Neufeld who are two of my heroes, would quite literally deny me without even having reviewed the merits of my case. So I wrote a letter to the executive director Christina Swarns, Esq., where I informed her of the date I received the first letter, explaining that I only took six hours to complete it and mailed it back, but that I was being denied because (a) the U.S. Postal service didn't inherently understand that it needed to wave its magic wand and somehow get the IP’s letter to me in a matter of hours instead of days, or, (b) because someone at the IP got their feelings hurt by the previous article I wrote, where I rightfully and accurately condemned their approach of only accepting DNA cases. But, the IP’s executive director, Christina Swarns, Esq., didn't respond.
Unless, of course, I consider the IP’s next letter, dated October 10, 2023, as her response, where it reads, “The Innocence Project only handles post-conviction cases if Innocence can be proven by DNA testing.” And also reads, “Unless there is physical evidence that can be tested to prove your innocence, your case falls outside our narrow mandate.”
Supreme Court, courtesy of The American Prospect
What mandate? Perhaps a Supreme Court Justice like Clarence Thomas, at some point over the 31 year life trajectory of the Innocence Project, stood at the highest points of his ivory tower, and unequivocally stated that the Innocence Project is only mandated to seek justice in instances where DNA evidence is available, and everyone else who is innocent: LET THEM ROT IN PRISON!
Or, maybe the mandate isn’t actually official, but more like the kind of mandate presented as a helpful suggestion at an annual benefit dinner, where corporate donors say things like, “we really believe in your cause, if and only if, you can be absolutely certain that our donation is not going to be used to free some murderer who gets out and goes on a killing spree. We feel confident that as long as you are only representing cases where DNA evidence unequivocally proves innocence that we will continue to support you.”
I do not doubt that the Innocence Project is tasked with a complicated balancing act as it relates to upholding the mandates of the Constitution, its donors, its clients, and the needs of all the innocent who languish in U.S. prisons in search of a ray of hope. But, if it insists on holding itself up to the world as the Innocence Project then that is the mandate where, as an organization, its focus needs to be centered on just that: innocence. Otherwise it should call itself The DNA Justice Initiative, or perhaps more accurately, The DNA Project.
Let's be clear, based on the IP's own internal score keeping, they, on average, are only helping six wrongfully convicted individuals every year. And last year, for example, their donation revenue was $50 million. Are we to believe that it costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $8.3 million to exonerate one person?
Far be it for any of us to be hypercritical or judgmental. But if your legitimate agenda is fighting against the wrongful convictions and incarceration of innocent people, and you have the resources of money and brilliant minds at your disposal, and still, your organization only averages six, maybe seven, exonerations a year at a cost of $8.3 million each, then either you are corrupt, or, your modus operandi is not working and you need to rethink your approach.
Understanding how wrongful convictions comes about isn't difficult. In most instances, it begins with a horrendous crime being committed. The public is both frightened and outraged, and in this dual emotional state of fear and anger the public looks to the police and politicians like the district attorney to somehow rectify the situation. Both the police and politicians look at each other for a solution, and, if not, a mistake that would give cause to place the blame at the other’s feet. Since a solution is not available they instead decide that someone, at the very least, needs to be held accountable. And though it would be ideal that this someone be the actual culprit and causer of the horrendous crime, they will settle for “maybe” is the actual culprit, so long as there is a conviction to be held up to the public as proof positive that they are fulfilling their mandates and doing their jobs. That’s it, that’s all it is: self preservation masking human ineptitude.
Now, if we understand the cause of wrongful convictions, then, it stands to reason that a modus operandi or approach that doesn't account for what we already know to be the underlying cause is the epitome of folly. Because while the IP is busy rescuing six people a year, which they do not need $50 million to accomplish, they could be utilizing their bully pulpit of having occupied the high moral ground of defending the innocent for the last 31 years to effectuate actual reforms to both state and federal law that could potentially eliminate or drastically reduce wrongful convictions caused by “governmental misconduct.”
Obviously, if we were to isolate the major players and authors of wrongful convictions we would arrive at the police, the prosecutors, the judges, and the defense attorneys (those who knowingly turn a blind eye to the very corruption undermining their clients’ constitutional rights and do nothing about it)—the majority of which happen to be attorneys. We would then proceed to draft a law that clearly states the following: any governmental public servant or individual operating in an official capacity who knowingly withholds evidence potentially beneficial to a defendant, or, knowingly provides information that is false to a defendant, court, jury, or, fails to pursue viable investigative leads (as it relates to the investigative duties of law-enforcement); or, pursues a prosecutorial or defensive strategy that infringes upon a defendant’s constitutional rights; or, is aware of the derelict behavior of others that could potentially infringe upon a defendant’s constitutional rights and does not bring this behavior to the attention of the defendant, thereby, is in violation of this statue and will be immediately stripped of any and all immunities and therefore liable both criminally and civilly for their actions. Furthermore, this individual will hence forth be barred from any legal and/or law-enforcement profession anywhere in the United States or its territories.
Granted, it may seem highly improbable for a law like this to pass the House or Senate given Congress’s inability to govern, much less agree on even the most obvious pieces of legislation. Not to mention that Congress is filled with attorneys who would not be keen on legislating legal consequences for their legal brethren working in the trenches of the criminal justice system.
There would be critics arguing that if we strip away their immunity they (police, prosecutors, and judges) would be overly distracted by concerns of self-preservation, and thereby incapable of fulfilling the mandates of their professional roles. And, of course, we have heard this argument before and, just as before, it continues to be absolute bullshit.
If we can hold soldiers on the battlefield accountable for potential court martials; and, surgeons in operating room accountable with their Hippocratic oaths and exposure to medical malpractice suits; and accountants and every other form of licensed professional accountable. It stands to reason that We the People can theoretically hold anyone accountable.
Larry Krasner, courtesy of Slate.com
Larry Krasner, the current District Attorney of Philadelphia, shortly after taking office and having reviewed some of the work of his predecessors, was quoted saying that, “some of these prosecutors belong in a jail cell, and they belong in a jail cell because when you look at what they actually did it is evident that they were way more concerned about winning then they were concerned about whether or not an individual was innocent.”
The power bestowed on a prosecutor is a privilege not a right, it doesn't belong to them, it belongs to the people in the communities they serve. Therefore, for prosecutors to wield their swords with disregard for constitutional rights or potential innocence is the antonym of justice.
Non-profit organizations presumably devoted to innocence know all of this. And yet, after more than three decades of lamenting the obvious, how many pieces of definitive legislation has the IP proposed in an attempt at leveling the playing field? The IP has certainly made breakthroughs in passing compensation laws for the exonerated in some states, biological evidence (DNA) testing laws, mandates forcing transparency in law enforcement, and banning the use of deception during the interrogation of minors. Just this year they contributed to 13 laws being passed in 9 states. Apparently the IP can utilize its resources and bully pulpit to effectuate change, just not the kind of change that would drastically reform our criminal justice system into the “fair, compassionate and equitable” system that it envisions in its own mission statement. We could argue, based on the evidence before us, that these organizations are nothing more than self-serving entities: they raise money for a legitimate cause; compensate themselves to address that cause; and to the surprise of no one, never really arrive at a definitive solution.
The problem is in the details. They pay the attorneys, investigators, and expert witnesses who actually do the work, all within the confines of a broken derelict system which is about as concerned with innocence or the wrongful nature of a conviction as an oil company is with long-term consequences of burning fossil fuels. And, instead of using their power to legislate a solution that doesn't take decades, an absurd amount of expenditures, or depend on the whims of judges or the ever-shifting political winds, these organizations choose the easy wins and safe bets instead of actually swinging for the fences.
We need a better way.
We need for the non-profits who wear the mantles of justice and innocence to do more than just roll the dice and move their pieces around the game board. Consider, for example, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) passed by Congress in 1996 to presumably curtail terrorism. It has never lived up to its mandate. What it has done is pander to judicial economy, condone “official misconduct,” and desecrate Article One Section 9 of the Constitution that states, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Essentially, AEDPA effectively suspends the federal court’s ability to grant habeas corpus petitions. Which is to say, that, in effect, Congress has passed a law that abrogates Habeas Corpus, and the Constitution, bringing us to a two-part question: what did the Innocence Project or its cohorts do to prevent this legislation; and, what are they doing about it now?
If the IP’s intention is to just follow its “narrow mandate” of involving itself in the miniscule amount of criminal cases where DNA evidence is present, whether that be for the purpose of appeasing corporate donors, or to avoid excommunication from legal communities who resent change, what is clear is that individual donors, that 34% of its $50 million in revenue last year, should certainly consider whether or not the Innocence Project is living up to their mandate. Because a non-profit can either represent the idealism that believes in generosity, fairness, equality, hope, and love; or it can represent the very worst parts of us, such as the complacency, indifference, and fear.