Preview

Theory and Practice of Forensic Science

Advanced search

Harmonization of Examination Methodologies: A Crucial Institutional Component of Forensic Science in the Russian Federation

https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2018-13-2-81-87

Abstract

A unified methodological approach is critical to obtaining objective and scientifically sound results in forensic practice. Such an approach ensures that different practitioners working with the same physical evidence will obtain comparable results. This, in turn, guarantees that the most important principles of forensic science are upheld, namely, that examinations are conducted objectively, comprehensively and exhaustively, with the possibility of further verification of reliability and validity of the expert’s conclusions.

In this regard, standardization and harmonization of scientific methodologies supporting forensic operations are the cornerstone of the reform of the modern institution of forensic science in the Russian Federation, as well as an integral part of the judicial reform. The current state of methodological support in the system of state and non-state forensic science organizations in Russia is analyzed. The author presents the case for mandatory certification of forensic methods and proposes a range of measures to advance the harmonization of forensic methodologies in forensic practice. 

About the Author

Marina V. Zhizhina
Kutafin Moscow State Law University
Russian Federation

Doctor of Law, Professor of the Department of Criminalistics,

Moscow 125993



References

1. Smirnova S., Omelyanyuk G., Usov A. Current Problems of Codification of Innovations in Forensic Practice in the Russian Federation. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2016. No 1 (41). P. 26–35. (In Russ.).

2. Usov A.I., Kuz’min S.A. Towards Standardization of Forensic Services across the Commonwealth of Independent States. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2016. No 4 (44). P. 26–30. (In Russ.).

3. Rossinskaya E.R., Galyashina E.I., Zinin A.M. Theory of forensic expertise (Forensic expertology). Мoscow: Norma: Infra-M, 2016. 368 p. (In Russ).

4. Galyashina E.I. Speech expert evaluations: from theory to practice. Expert-Criminalist. 2015. No 2. P. 28–31. (In Russ.).

5. Aminev F.G. On Some Problems of Forensic Activity in the Russian Federation. Russian Judge. 2016. No 6. P. 12–16. (In Russ.).

6. Zaitseva E.A. Forensic Science: Search of New Paradigms. Criminal Judicial Proceeding. 2010. No 3. P. 28–31. (In Russ.).

7. Orlova V.F. (ed). Forensic handwriting analysis. General part: Theoretical and methodological foundations. 2nd ed. Moscow: Nauka, 2006. 544 p. (In Russ.).

8. Orlova V.F. (ed). Forensic handwriting analysis. Special part: Examination of small amounts of writing. 2nd ed. Moscow: RFCFS, 2011. 538 p. (In Russ.).

9. Rossinskaya E.R. (ed). Forensic science: typical mistakes. Moscow: Prospekt, 2012. 544 p. (In Russ.).

10. Ivanov N.A. Logic, physics and chemistry of determination of absolute limitation of execution of particulars of the document. ExpertCriminalist. 2015. No 2. P. 6–10. (In Russ.).


Review

For citations:


Zhizhina M.V. Harmonization of Examination Methodologies: A Crucial Institutional Component of Forensic Science in the Russian Federation. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2018;13(2):81-87. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2018-13-2-81-87

Views: 1135


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1819-2785 (Print)
ISSN 2587-7275 (Online)