In short, Drost, Fein, Kuper, Harff and Gurr, Legters and to some extent Bauer were more supportive of the UN definition. Since the 1990s, the UN definition has been used with international support since the 1990s to c onvict many perpetrators of genocide and to establish more legal precedents. This expands the Convention’s capacity to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. However, it does not mean the UN definition does not need amendments. Problems still exist with this definition, no matter how many legal precedents are established. Legal and Sociological Definitions The legal definitions of genocide are more specific than the sociological ones. Legal definitions are mainly used to prevent and identify the crime of genocide, whereas sociological definitions seem to be coined more broadly to assist research. Some scholars, however, do not make a distinction. Many scholars give much emphasis to historical instances of genocide and shape their definitions by incorporating the common characteristics of each case. As such they lack concerns about the future, and scholars do not predict how their definitions would become relevant in future circumstances. The UN made this same error in its exclusions of political groups. In contrast, this paper’s definition is more future -oriented, flexible and harmonized with current moral standards, emphasizing on the extreme barbarity of destroying members of a group because of who they are. Many scholars are preoccupied with comparative studies of genocide and theorizing about genocide for sociological research. There is little focus on barbarity and prevention in their definitions. Genocide might not be a new social phenomenon that could be theorized.  It could be an old practice of brutal massacres commonly committed in antiquity and the Middle Ages. As we are in the modern age and have a higher moral standard, genocide has become more despised and emphasized. If we are to prevent genocide, then its definition should prevent it. The way is now open for a new definition.