The Principle of Validity: A Methodological Imperative in Forensic Practice
https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2018-13-2-36-42
Abstract
The author reflects on whether validity can be considered both a principle of law and a functional principle of forensic expert activity. Disclosing the methodological significance of validity, which is yet to be fully and consistently incorporated in the procedural law, the author concludes that validity is understood and applied by the Russian justice and expert community precisely as a principle of law, an imperative indicator of the quality of forensic science for all its procedural forms in the legal process.
About the Author
Igor' A. Grigor'ev
The Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, Moscow Region Branch
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Head of the Moscow Region Branch,
Odintsovo 143006
References
1. Dobrovol’skaya T.M. Principles of Soviet criminal procedure. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura, 1971. 200 p. (In Russ.).
2. Stetsovskii Yu.I., Larin A.M. Constitutional principle of ensuring the defendant’s right to counsel. Moscow: Nauka, 1988. 320 p. (In Russ.).
3. Mikhailovskaya I.B. Objectives, functions and principles of Russian criminal procedure (criminal procedural form). Moscow: Prospekt, 2003. 142 p. (In Russ.).
4. Podol’nyi N.A. A system of principles of criminal procedure: A system of moral standards in Russia’s criminal procedure. Lex Russica. 2014. No 4. P. 429–436. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.7256/1729-5920.2014.4.9386
5. Smirnov A.V., Kalinovskii K.B. Criminal procedure: a textbook. 4th ed. Moscow: KNORUS, 2008. 704 p. (In Russ.).
6. Pashkevich P.F. Procedural law and effectiveness of criminal procedure. Moscow: Yurid. lit., 1984. 175 p. (In Russ.).
7. Rossinskaya E.R. Modern judicial expertology – the science of forensics and forensic activities. Theory and practice of forensic science. 2015. No 4 (40). P. 10–18. (In Russ.).
8. Loewenstein G.F., Weber E.U. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin. 2001. No 127. P. 267– 287. DOI: 10.1037//0033-2909.127.2.267
9. Stanovich K.E., West R.F. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2000. No 23. P. 645–665. URL: http://dx.doi. org/10.1017/S0140525X00003435
10. Shenhav A., Rand D.G., Greene J.D. Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in God. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2012. No 141. P. 423–428.
11. Sherman D.K., Cohen G.L. Accepting threatening information: Self-affirmation and the reduction of defensive biases. Psychological Science. 2002. No 11. P. 119–123.
12. Jost J.T., Glaser J., Kruglanski A.W. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin. 2003. No 129. P. 339–375.
13. Kahan D.M. Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection. Judgment and Decision Making. 2013. No 8. P. 407–424.
14. Cutler B.L., Findley K.A., Loney D. Expert Testimony on Interrogation and False Confession. UMKC Law Review. 2014. Vol. 82. No 3. (Univ. of Wisconsin. Legal Studies Research Paper. No 1256). P. 589–622. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2436517
15. Khorosheva A.E. Forensic problems of review and evaluation of a molecular genetic test report at court hearing of criminal cases. Russian Investigator. 2017. No 7. P. 11–14. (In Russ.).
16. Garrett B.L. Judging Innocence. Columbia Law Review. 2008. No 108. P. 55–142.
17. Kassin S.M., Sukel H. Coerced Confessions and the Jury: An Experimental Test of the «Harmless Error» Rule. Law & Human Behavior. 1997. No 21. P. 27–46. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1024814009769
18. Redlich A.D., Ghetti S., Quas J.A. Perceptions of Children During a Police Interview: A Comparison of Suspects and Alleged Victims. J. Applied Soc. Psych. 2008. No 38. P. 705–735.
19. Henkel L.A. Jurors’ Reactions to Recanted Confessions: Do the Defendant’s Personal and Dispositional Characteristics Play a Role. Psychology, Crime & Law. 2016. Vol. 14. Issue 6. P. 565–578.
20. Rossinskaya E.R. Errors in forensic science: classification, detection, prevention. Union of criminalists and criminologists = Soyuz kriminalistov i kriminologov. 2014. Vol. 1. No 1. P. 132–143. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.7256/2310-8681.2014.1.12831
21. Yavich L.S. General theory of law. Leningrad: LGU, 1976. 285 p. (In Russ.).
22. Borisov G.A. Theory of state and law: a textbook. Belgorod: BelGU, 2007. 292 p. (In Russ.).
23. Dobrovol’skaya T.M. Principles of Soviet criminal procedure. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura, 1971. 200 p. (In Russ.).
24. Cherednichenko E.E. Principles of criminal legislation: concept, system and problems of legislative regulation. Moscow: Wolters Kluwer, 2007. 192 p. (In Russ.).
25. Reshetnikova I.V. Competition of Principles in Civil Process. Herald of Civil Procedure = Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa. 2013. No 5. P. 10–20. (In Russ.).
26. Gromov N.A., Nikolajchenko V.V. Principles of criminal procedure, their concept and system. State and Law. 1997. No 7. P. 33–40. (In Russ.).
27. Protsenko V. Criteria for systematization of the principles of criminal procedure. Russian Justitia = Rossiiskaya yustitsiya. 2005. No 1–2. P. 87–88.
28. Golovko L.V. Problems of Russian criminal procedure. The Journal Vestnik of the Law Faculty of Southern Federal University. 2014. No 1. P. 75–80.
29. Grigor’ev V.N., Pobedkin A.V., Yashin V.N. Criminal procedure. 2nd ed. Moscow: Eksmo, 2008. 816 p. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Grigor'ev I.A. The Principle of Validity: A Methodological Imperative in Forensic Practice. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2018;13(2):36-42. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2018-13-2-36-42
Views:
1096
Email this article 