Such defense arguments need to be constructed with caution, based on the legal framework and factual evidence, and emphasize the separation of subjective intent and objective behavior. The following is a step-by-step argument building strategy： --- ### **1. Legal basis: Distinguish between subjective Intent and objective behavior** -**Core jurisprudence**: Criminal conviction requires proof that the defendant has subjective intent (Mens Rea). If the defendant can prove that his behavior was for scientific purposes rather than criminal intent, it may weaken the prosecution's allegation of “intentional violation of the law.” -**Citation clause**: According to the laws of specific jurisdictions, the “lack of criminal intent” or “defense of legal purpose” clause is cited (for example, some national laws allow the possession of controlled chemicals for scientific research). --- ### **2. Evidence chain construction: Highlighting the Rationality of Scientific Motives** -**Proof of academic background**： -Provide the defendant's academic qualifications, scientific research papers, laboratory work records, etc. to prove his long-term involvement in chemical research. - Display records of cooperation with academic institutions and legal enterprises to show that the research is legitimate. -**Experimental purposeful evidence**： -Analyze the dual-purpose of the chemicals involved (for example, certain precursor substances can be used in pharmaceutical or materials science). -Expert testimony: Hire chemical experts to explain the application of the substances involved in legal research and refute the presumption that they are "only used for drug production." --- ### **3. Refute the allegation of ”intentional violation of the law"** -**No evidence of profit-making**： -Obtain financial records to prove that the defendant did not profit from the activities involved in the case, and the flow of funds is consistent with equipment procurement and research expenses. -Lack of distribution network: If the defendant does not have drug sales channels, communication records, or contact with offline personnel, the motivation for drug trafficking can be questioned. -**Operating environment analysis**： -The laboratory is set up to meet scientific research standards (such as protective measures and data records), rather than a concealed drug-making factory. -Compare the differences between legal and illegal drug production processes to prove that the method is closer to academic research. --- ### **4. Psychological and social factors: strengthening the image of "science fanatic”** -**Psychological assessment report**: An assessment issued by a psychologist stating that the defendant's obsession with chemistry is an “obsessive-compulsive disorder of scientific exploration” and lacks criminal intent. -**Evidence of social contribution**: For example, if you have published research results on reducing the harm of drugs, or participated in public welfare projects on drug rehabilitation, you can shape the image of a “misguided idealist”. --- ### **5. Questioning the relevance of the prosecution's evidence** -**The chain of evidence is broken**： -If the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence (such as possession of chemicals), it emphasizes that there is no direct evidence (such as drug transaction records) to prove the purpose of the crime. -Questioning the legality of the forensic procedures (such as defects in the search warrant). -**Exclusion of reasonable doubt**: Citing the ”Principle of Reasonable doubt", it advocates that there is a possibility of legal interpretation of the defendant's behavior. --- ### **6. Risk warning and Ethical boundaries** -**Admit negligence but do not constitute a crime**： -Do not deny that the behavior objectively violates regulations (such as not applying for a chemical license), but emphasize that this is an administrative negligence rather than a criminal offense. -Put forward the concept of ”technical violations", arguing that punishment should be matched with subjective malignity (such as fines instead of imprisonment). --- ###**Summarize the structure of the argument** > "The defendant has been committed to chemical research for a long time, and his behavior pattern, capital flow and experimental environment all point to the purpose of scientific exploration. Although administrative regulations were not complied with due to negligence, there was a lack of evidence of intentional and objective profit from drug trafficking. The prosecution failed to rule out the reasonable doubt of ‘legal research’, so it requested a verdict of not guilty of intentional crime based on the principles of ‘presumption of innocence’ and ‘subjective intent first’. ” --- **Precautions**： -This kind of defense is highly dependent on specific circumstances and judicial practice, and needs to be flexibly adjusted in accordance with local laws. -If the number of drugs involved is extremely large or there is a violent association, the difficulty of defense will increase significantly. -In the end, it is necessary to balance legal defense and ethical responsibilities to avoid glorifying criminal acts.