This committee should also oversee the collection of blood samples for the population studies, and advise the courts on statistical questions as well. The committee would be composed of molecular geneticists, population geneticists, ethicists and lawyers. It would be housed in the National Institutes of Health or the National Institute of Standards and Technology, with support from the National Institute of Justice and the National Science Foundation.

The acceptance of DNA fingerprinting is going through the same type of debate that ink fingerprinting went through, with questions about whether more than one person could have the same print, whether there could be abuse by police, and the methods of taking samples. Considering all factors of DNA fingerprinting that have been presented in the courtroom, it does appear that the widespread acceptance of DNA testing in court is close to realization. However, it remains to be been what standards will be placed on the testing procedures and the labs performing the tests.

In a report issued by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the committee came out strongly in favor or mandatory accreditation of DNA typing labs and mandatory proficiency testing. The problem is that this new technology came to the forefront so rapidly that there are essentially no standards and no regulations. This is especially disturbing since the largest potential source or error lies in poor laboratory practice. The group urges Congress to adopt legislation requiring accreditation of all DNA typing labs and recommends that the courts allow DNA evidence to be admitted only if the laboratory has been accredited. They delegate the task of setting up the program to the Department of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Department of Justice.

At least 15 men have been freed after serving time when comparisons of their DNA failed to match evidence gathered at crime scenes. If even one out of 1,000 wrongly convicted justly goes free, the costs would be substantiated. The ink fingerprint had to pass the test. So will the genetic fingerprint. Why not perfect the technique and gauge the judicial system’s acceptance of DNA fingerprinting by freeing the innocent while attorney and scientist battle it out in court?

DNA fingerprinting, like ink fingerprinting, must go through various levels of acceptance and testing to determine its true usefulness. This process, if taken through the already over-crowded courts, will undoubtedly take years to perfect. Therefore, it is important to realize that while these battles wage onward and as DNA fingerprinting does gain the acceptance of the criminal justice system, it is to the advantage of that same system to use the conclusive science as a means to exonerate those wrongly convicted.

In a few years, it will be apparent that DNA fingerprinting is a major player in the evidence arena. It is evident now that there will seldom be a rape or murder trial brought into a courtroom without the most advanced forensic evidence – DNA fingerprinting. But is it fair for an innocent man to spend even one more day in prison when the means for his freedom exists, but is not made easily available because the debate of its accuracy wages on in court?

The results for the innocent man would be conclusive. There is no need for scientific evaluation or questions about the admissibility of the evidence in a court. DNA fingerprinting as a means of exonerating those wrongly convicted is an accurate, more reliable science than the statistical probabilities that must be accounted for in a conviction based on DNA evidence. Therefore, while scientists perfect the testing methods, the government establishes standards and the courts decide upon admissibility standards for DNA fingerprinting, the technology should be used more for the exoneration of those wrongly convicted instead of a means for attorneys to impress a jury with scientific hocus-pocus. One of the most compelling reasons for introducing more vigorous DNA laws is to confirm its role in strengthening child molestation laws.

According to U.S. Department Justice, child molestation is a broadly defined term which includes: contacts or interactions including inappropriate physical contact between a child and an adult when the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the perpetrator or another person when the perpetrator or another person is in a position of power or control over the victim. Sexual Molestation is  a term defining offenses in which an adult engage in non-penetrative activity with a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification; for example, exposing a minor to pornography or to the sexual acts of others.

The definition of a minor varies from state to state; with states such as Arkansas allowing for consent at age fourteen and California which allows for consent at the age of eighteen. Consent is not a matter of consideration, and is not available as a defense to a charge of child molestation because federal and state laws do not recognize a child capable of issuing consent for any sexual acts.

Molestation of a minor is a felony punishable by the minimum sentence of two years in prison for first time offenders for child molestation: to the death penalty in some states for anyone convicted of a second or subsequent conviction of molestation involving a child less than fourteen years of age. A sentence enhancement including use of a fire arm, or a strike offense can lead to longer sentences. Five of fifty U.S. states can seek the death penalty for repeat offenders. If you are convicted, you will be required to register as a sex offender for life. The sex offender database can be legally accessed by anyone except for convicted sex offenders. Convicted child molesters that serve time in prison face greater peril than any other type of offender; they are considered by other inmates as being the “lowest of the low” and fair game for attacks against them. Convicted child molesters are often housed in protective custody for their own well being.

There are laws to enforce mandated reporting which requires persons that work in professions such as education, social service, medical professionals and any type of social work. They are required to file a report of any suspected abuse. The usual confidentiality afforded to therapist and their patients does not apply to child molestation.

There are several related child molestation laws on a national level, but the federal government does not usually get involved unless the crimes occur under federal jurisdiction, such as interstate transportation. If that is the case, the federal government of the will enhance child molestation laws to include charges such as transportation of a minor, soliciting and possibly kidnapping. Most of the laws concerning child molestation laws put enforcement in the states’ hands which is why the wording of the law and the penalties vary so much.

Allegations of child molestation are the easiest crime to accuse and the hardest to defend. The general public including juries is prone to automatically believe the allegation of a child. This can result in a situation where anyone accused of a sexual offense against a child is for all practical purposes presumed guilty. It is a difficult charge to defend but with qualified counsel it can be done. The most publicized defenses are affirmative defenses. An affirmative defense shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant and includes mental disease or defect, intoxication and immaturity as well as affirmative belief that the minor misrepresented them to the defendant. The prosecutor knows only what the police or social workers have stated in their reports. Child molestation defenses are similar to child pornography defenses.  Under child molestation laws if the defendant can show that the minor represented themselves to be reasonably believed as an adult by showing documentation that appears to be legal for the purpose of validating a minors age, they may obtain an acquittal , but this is by no means certain, and one should never rely on documentation of proof of age as a license to commit crime.