At first, DNA fingerprinting was used to establish genetic relationships in paternity and immigration cases. It was first used to secure a conviction of rape in 1987 and is becoming more common in violent crimes, such as assault and battery charges, in which skin, semen or blood is found. Since then, DNA Fingerprinting has been subject to great controversy and scrutiny by the scientific and criminal justice community.

Leading scientists have waged battles in the courtroom over the reliability of forensic DNA fingerprinting. From the accuracy of the testing methods and the quality control standards, to the admissibility and acceptance of DNA testing as evidence in criminal trials, every aspect of DNA testing is being questioned. While the battle wages on in court, it should be acknowledged that the greatest use at this time is exonerating the wrongly convicted. A strong concentration should be placed on the role DNA fingerprinting plays as evidence to exonerate the innocent, while continuing the development of more accurate testing and the acceptance as a conclusive form of evidence at trial is widely gained.

At this stage, the advantages of using DNA fingerprinting to exonerate outweigh the advantages of using the evidence to convict at trial. This paper will outline the various advantages and disadvantages of each, and it will be evident that although DNA fingerprinting is undeniably a true asset to the criminal trial, its greatest use for the moment is for the exoneration of the wrongly convicted.

The technique of DNA fingerprinting relies on the fact that, except for identical twins, everyone’s DNA is unique. The controversy begins when a match is made. Each person’s entire genetic code is unique. However, genetic profiling examines only a tiny fraction of a person’s DNA. Statistical models are used to demonstrate that two DNA samples match.

There are two DNA testing methods currently being used. The most accurate method of DNA profiling, involving restriction fragment length polymorphism, or RFLP, requires extracting genetic material from small amounts of body tissue or fluid – blood, saliva, bone, skin or a hair follicle. This method only requires a bloodstain as small as a quarter. Tiny fragments of the DNA are then used to generate images that look similar to barcodes, which are examined visually for a match with DNA fragments from the suspect. RFLP profiling takes weeks to complete and can cost several thousand dollars per sample. It has been used to link at least 700 individuals to crimes.

The updated DNA fingerprinting process, the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) method, employs an enzyme that scientists can direct towards regions of the DNA that are known to contain variations. The enzyme then copies the region. When the process is repeated about 30 times – with the number doubling each time – more than a billion copies are produced. These can be projected onto a nylon strip in the form of blue dots that delineate the genetic profiles of the segments. Unlike the RFLP method, the PCR system can be carried out in a matter of days. It can be performed on small amounts of DNA, and even on DNA that has begun to degrade.

The major advantage of DNA’s use in exoneration is the conclusiveness of the results. It is simple black and white: if there is no match between DNA found at the scene of a crime and DNA from a suspect, the suspect is automatically absolved. In the case of conviction, there may be no suspect in custody to match with the DNA found at the crime scene.

In 1992 Guy Paul Morin was convicted of killing a 9-year-old Ontario girl. Morin’s conviction was not based on the DNA evidence available because the tests carried out were inconclusive. The sample taken from the girl’s underpants was not pure. The sample had been contaminated by various biological elements surrounding the girl’s body. In 1995, a Boston lab carried out a new round of tests using the DNA fingerprinting process. Scientists removed the other biological material clinging to the underpants to extract an uncontaminated sample of DNA. The evidence was conclusive. The DNA taken from the underpants did not match Morin’s.

Another factor that figures prominently into the positive aspects of DNA fingerprinting is compulsory DNA sampling. An argument in its favor arose from the Morin case. The tests that proved Morin’s innocence also yielded a genetic profile of the unknown suspect. If a national registry of DNA samples was established and the DNA profile gained from the recent Morin test was stored in the national registry, prosecutors might someday be able to bring the real suspect to justice if he were to commit another crime. The practice of obtaining these DNA samples must be closely monitored so as not to infringe upon a person’s constitutional rights. Twenty-six states now keep DNA data on felons as well as thumbprints and fingerprints.

Despite the debates over fairness that DNA testing promotes, many scientists and lawyers insist that the true beauty of “genetic justice” is that it is even-handed. “I’ve been telling people, ‘Stop looking at DNA as the great convicter,’” says Derrill Prevett, a Victoria lawyer who has prosecuted four cases involving DNA evidence. “It’s more objective than that – and it can completely eliminate people from suspicion.”

Drug cultivation and manufacturing laws make it a crime to (1) grow, produce, and possess certain plants and other naturally occurring elements used in the production of unlawful controlled substances, such as cannabis seeds and marijuana plants; or (2) to produce illegal controlled substances like methamphetamine, Ecstasy, LSD, and cocaine, which require use of certain chemicals and various laboratory equipment to produce. For instance, if police conducted a legal search of your home and found cannabis seeds, high-powered lamps, and remnants of marijuana plants, you could be charged with violation of drug cultivation and manufacturing laws. Laws for drug cultivation vary according to the type of drug produced and the amount of the drug produced.

Although state laws vary, a person is generally guilty of drug manufacture when they produce an illegal substance by means of a chemical synthesis or a natural extraction process. The manufacturing of drugs can also include the packaging or repacking of the substance or the labeling and re-labeling of its container.

Marijuana cultivation as well as the possession of the chemicals necessary to manufacture illegal drugs is a felony. However, several states have passed statutes that allow patients to grow, possess, and use marijuana for medical purposes if they have the documented approval of a physician. Some even allow registered care givers to grow the plants and distribute them, but not use the drug themselves. Amounts are generally restricted to ounces of useable marijuana, a specific number of plants, or a supply for a certain number of days. In U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative (2001), the Supreme Court ruled that there is no medical necessity exception to the federal ban on marijuana, yet a ruling in Raich v. Ashcroft (9th Cir. 2003), granted an injunction in California against federal prosecution for possession and use of marijuana that has not been sold or transported across state lines and is used for medicinal purposes. This case has been appealed to the Supreme Court, and time will tell where these rulings will end.

In addition, some states allow limited exceptions to the manufacture and distribution of peyote for use in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native American Church. As with the marijuana rulings, cases for peyote manufacturing and cultivation are the subject of many court battles.

While marijuana production is probably the most common and easiest drug to manufacture, manufacture of methamphetamines has become a major concern in the “war on drugs.” In 1983, the criminal justice system passed laws prohibiting possession of equipment that could serve as a precursor for methamphetamine production, and in 1986, passed the Federal Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act in an effort to slow the use of designer drugs. Despite these precautions, methamphetamine use expanded throughout the rural U.S. with clandestine laboratories resorting to the use of unorthodox and unclean equipment for methamphetamine production such as mason jars and plastic kitchen containers. As a result, since 1989, five federal laws and numerous state laws have been imposed in an attempt to curb the production of methamphetamines.

Unfortunately, methamphetamine can be quite easily produced in home laboratories using pseudoephedrine or ephedrine, active ingredients in many cold and sinus over-the-counter drugs. Most states have placed addition restrictions on the sale of these precursor chemicals, making them more difficult for the average methamphetamine manufacturer to obtain. Much to the dismay of many consumers, pseudoephedrine, a common over-the-counter decongestant, now requires a purchaser to provide identification and various other information before being permitted to purchase a simple package of cold medicine.

Defenses to Drug Manufacturing/Cultivation
Defenses for criminal manufacturing/cultivation charges are the same as for most other drug offenses. The police may legitimately search persons and property, and seize both persons and property, either with or without a warrant if the circumstances justify these actions. Thus, the key to a drug manufacture defense rests on proof that the police acted without probable cause or exceeded constitutional limitations on their actions. In these cases where searches and/or seizures are deemed invalid the resulting evidence may be considered to be tainted and consequently, inadmissible, leaving the court with very little recourse for a drug conviction.

To explore further articles go to http://www.defending.com

Fraud is not easily proven in a court of law, but defending fraud cases can still be complex. Laws regarding fraud may vary from state to state, but numerous conditions must first be met.  Did the seller know beforehand that the product was defective or the investment was worthless.  Some workers in a large business may sell a product or offer a service while having no personal knowledge of a deception.  For example, an account representative who sells a fraudulent insurance policy on behalf of their unscrupulous employer may not have known the policy was bogus at the time of sale.

The FBI has been warning the public about an ongoing scheme involving jury service.  Individuals identifying themselves as U.S. Court employees have been contacting citizens by phone and advising them that they have been selected for jury duty.  These individuals ask citizens to verify names and social security numbers, and then they ask the potential jurors for their credit card numbers.  Citizens are then threatened with fines if the request is improved.

It is very difficult to get your money back if you have been cheated over the phone.  Before you purchase anything by telephone, there are somethings you can remember to prevent yourself from becoming their next victim.

• Do not buy from an unfamiliar company.  Legitimate businesses understand that you will want more information, and they should be happy to comply.
• While not everything that is written down is factual, one should always ask for and wait until you receive written material about a charity or any other offer.
• If you get brochures about costly investments, take them to someone whose financial advice you can trust.
• Always investigate unfamiliar companies by contacting your local consumer protection agency, the Better Business Bureau, your state’s Attorney General, the National Fraud Information Center, or other watchdog groups.  While not all bad businesses can be identified through these organizations, the vast majority will be weeded out correctly.
• Before you give any money to a charity or investment opportunity, check to see what percentage actually goes to them, and how much of the money is used to pay commissions or overhead expenses.
• What guarantee do you really have that the solicitor will use the money in the manner that is agreed upon?
• Only pay for services once they have been delivered or are completed, never beforehand.
• Finally, always take your time before making any financial decision.

There are some warning signs that you can look out for during your telephone conversation.  If you hear any of the following, say “No thank you” and hang up.

• “You must act now or the offer won’t be good any longer”
• “You have won a free gift or prize”, but you have to pay shipping and handling or other charges
• “You don’t need any written information about their company or their references.”  Any legitimate company will gladly provide you with this information.

Impersonation or identity fraud cases occur when someone assumes your identity to perform a fraud or other criminal act.  Criminals can get the information they need to assume your identity from a variety of sources, such as the theft of your wallet bank or credit information, or even your trash.  They may approach you in person, by telephone, or on the Internet and ask you for the information.

Never throw away ATM receipts, credit statements, credit cards, or bank statements in a usable form, and never give your credit card number over the phone unless you are the one making the call.  Reconcile your bank statement monthly, and notify your bank immediately of any discrepancies.  Finally, report any unauthorized financial transactions to your bank, credit card company, or even the police as soon as you detect them. It may seem too late, but you could be defending yourself against further fraud.

Other fraudulent activities to look for include advance fee schemes and medical or hospital fraud.  Make yourself more informed, and follow the aforementioned advice to help prevent becoming a victim of one of the consumer fraud cases.

Within the past twenty-seven years, United States drunk driving consequences have become more and more severe as the laws have become more stringent.  Drunk driving laws are enforced at the state level rather than the federal level, and as a result, laws and penalties vary in each state.  The federal government tempts state administrators to adopt certain laws through fiscal control.  As of 2001, federal highway structure funds are redirected into enforcing drunk driving laws and learning programs for states that do not act in accordance with federally suggested guidelines.  These tactics guarantee that most state laws follow a reasonably standard set of rules concerning drunk driving.

The most common and powerful form of evidence in a DUI case is a breathalyzer test.  A breath test measures the concentration of alcohol in your breath to estimate breath alcohol content (BAC).  Refusal of a breathalyzer test, in most states, will result in an automatic suspension of your driver’s license.  All states have adopted 21 as the legal driving age with two-thirds of states having Administrative License Revocation laws which allow arresting officers to take the license of a driver who fails or refuses to take a breath test.  All states have “per se laws” that state it’s a crime to drive with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above 0.08, and many states enforce Zero Tolerance laws, which prohibit drivers under 21 from having any measurable amount of alcohol in their blood system.  In addition, in some states, drunk driving is a crime, whereas in others, for instance New Jersey, drunk driving is a traffic offense.  In many states, penalties for drunk driving are mandatorily imposed by state law with mandatory jail time for repeat DUI convictions.

Consequences and penalties for drunk driving are determined by the state where the crime was committed, the quantity of alcohol consumed, the crime committed while under the influence, the quantity of assets damage caused, and whether any bodily injuries resulted due to the driver’s under-the-influenced condition.  The most common consequences and penalties for drunk driving include: 1) imprisonment, 2) revocation of driver’s license, 3) probation or parole, 4) revocation of auto insurance and/or higher insurance rates, 5) mandatory driving school, 6) impounding of vehicle, 7) mandatory installation of an ignition device (called an ignition interlock, which is a piece of equipment that attaches to the convicted DUI offender’s vehicle and requires the driver to perform a breath-test before the vehicle will start and involves expense to the offender in installation fees and maintenance), 8) significant fines, and 9) substance abuse treatment.  In addition, to get a suspended or revoked license back, most DUI offenders must complete some form of DUI school and go through an assessment interview with a professional counselor to determine if the offender’s drinking is problematic enough to warrant ongoing counseling or required attendance and participation in of programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous.

Drunk driving consequences and laws are frequently updated and revised in the criminal justice system, making it difficult at best to determine just what an offender may face once they get in front of a judge to plead their case.  For instance, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that drunk drivers do not have the right to a jury trial.  Also, in Michigan v. Sitz, (No. 8801897), the United States Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints for the purpose of apprehending intoxicated driver is not in violation of the 4th amendment, which prohibits illegal search and seizure, only to have that decision later remanded to state court, with the state court of Michigan ruling the decision unconstitutional.

Defending drunk driving offenses may potentially include a defendant’s claim of insufficient evidence (a malfunctioning breathalyzer machine), a claim of factual innocence (defendant has been in recent contact with a chemical compound containing alcohol that increased breath alcohol concentration without raising blood alcohol content), and claims of illegal or improper police procedure (police violations of search and seizure procedures or violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights).  Since drunk driving consequences can be severe, the penalties issued by the criminal justice system can be commensurate.