Legal Team Research and Communication Technique



Legal Team Research and Communication Technique

Research and Communication Techniques

DNA evidence is the most reliable and accurate type of evidence that exists today, far more reliable than other types of evidence such as eyewitness identification and confessions. DNA evidence has helped solve crimes as well as exonerate individuals who have been wrongfully convicted. This last use of DNA is helping to reform the criminal justice system by revealing wrongful convictions due to the unreliability of eyewitness identification, coerced confessions, and other, less discriminating forms of physical evidence. However, using DNA evidence also raises some legal and ethical problems that must be addressed in order to uphold the constitutional rights of both defendants and citizens.

DNA typing in criminal justice emerged from a history of the use of genetic markers as early as 1900; more recently, the admissibility of DNA evidence has created legal and ethic issues, the problem of post-conviction DNA testing, and arguments for and against DNA database expansion as well as the future of DNA research.

Legal research is a form of knowledge that is characterized by the construction of empirical evidence drawn from the theory by applying explicit rules of procedure. From this definition, we can infer that any research has three elements that are hinged together: theoretical framework, objectives and methodology. These stages are mutually influencing each other, and in practice research together. The theoretical framework is a body of concepts of different levels of abstraction has joined together to guide the way of apprehending reality. It includes general assumptions about the functioning of society and the substantive theory or concepts on the subject to be analyzed. In the most general level of theory, we find the paradigm.

This is a set of theoretical and methodological concepts that the researcher assumes a system of basic beliefs that determine how oriented and look at reality. These principles are called into question by the researcher in their daily practice: rather function as assumptions that guide the choice itself of the problem or phenomenon under investigation, the definition of research objectives and the selection of the methodological strategy to address them.

DNA is not capable of indicating that only one individual is the source of a crime sample. Because of that fact, it is critical to use a tool to help determine the significance of the finding of genetic concordance between the crime stain type and the type of the individual (frequently, but not always, the suspect). The statistics given in reports and testimony are provided so that the judge or jury can evaluate the likelihood that the types found in the crime stain are from someone other than the person in question, and that the person has been identified as the donor by chance alone.

In other words, what is the probability that the person inferred as the donor of the stain in question is not the true donor, but has been falsely implicated because he (or she) coincidentally has the same type as the actual perpetrator ...