On approaches to the subject of criminalistics and the theory of forensics (forensic expertology)

The results of any academic research are the most important resource for the systematic development of all spheres of modern society and the formation of the entire scientific space. Thanks to the new content of the academic specialty, 12.00.12 - forensics; operational and investigative activities which it obtained after separation from the criminal procedure, it can expand its scope through the study of the objects of academic (e.g., dissertation) work in civil, arbitration and administrative proceedings. After the separation of the criminal process, operational and investigative activities have created opportunities for it to expand the scope through the study of scientific objects (e.g., dissertation works) in such types of proceedings as civil, arbitration and administrative. Modern developments show the demand for the achievements of "forensics" and "forensic expertise" in other forms of legal activity and the need to expand the boundaries of academic research, both theoretical and applied ones. The authors propose to consider the observed trend in three directions. The first direction involves conducting "traditional" academic research in the development and improvement of separate forensic methods for investigating certain types of crimes, improving investigative tactics, developing theoretical and applied aspects of the use of specialized knowledge in the investigation of crimes, and the appointment and production of examinations. Traditional border expansion also involves the "development of cyberspace," which has already partially affected all the structural sections of forensics. The second direction can be called a "relatively traditional” one. Here, we emphasize again the ambiguity of views about the possibility of introducing the results of forensic research in criminal trials. We fully support the opinions of forensic scientists, about the possibility and the need to conduct research aimed at developing the criminalistic provision of such a procedure as a preliminary hearing of a criminal case, the court's consideration of criminal cases of private prosecution, criminal proceedings involving jurors, and the review of criminal cases in the appellate court, etc. The second direction can be called "relatively traditional". In this case, we once again emphasize the ambiguity of views on the possibility of introducing the results of forensic research into criminal cases. We fully support the views of forensic experts not only on the possibility but also on the need to conduct research aimed at developing the criminal provision of such a procedure as preliminary hearing of a criminal case, the court's consideration of criminal cases of private prosecution, criminal proceedings involving jurors, and the consideration of criminal cases in the appeal court. The third direction of expanding the boundaries of academic research is the most controversial one, it is "not traditional" for criminology and is connected with the disputes about the need to correct the "subject of criminalistics" and the emergence of such a thesis as the "crisis of criminalistics". In the field of "forensic expert activity" the authors introduce the definition of the subject of the theory of forensics (forensic expertology), which predetermines additions to a well-known model of the structure of forensic expertology.

Keywords

Authors

References