Global Models of Criminalistics and Forensic Science
https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2018-13-3-6-11
Abstract
The paper looks at the world’s systems and models of criminalistics and forensic science. Comparison of the conceptual foundations and technological subsystems of forensic knowledge of the Austro-German, Roman and Anglo-Saxon schools (the concept of «Forensic Science») reveals an important pattern in the development of criminalistics and forensic science in Russia. The indicated vectors and prospects for further evolution of national criminalistics and forensic science point to a clear trend towards differentiation of specialized knowledge by branches, objects, methods and levels of investigation. The strengths and weaknesses of the western and Russian systems of forensic knowledge are demonstrated. Conclusions and recommendations are put forward regarding the modernization of both the structure and the theoretical and methodological framework of criminalistics and forensic science in Russia.
About the Authors
V. Ya. Koldin
Lomonosov Moscow State University.
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Valentin Ya. Koldin – Doctor of Law, Professor of the Law Department.
Moscow.
K. K. Seitenov
Forensic Science Institute of M. Narikbayev KAZGUU University.
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kaliolla K. Seitenov – Doctor of Law, Professor, Director.
Astana.
O. A. Krestovnikov
The Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation.
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Oleg A. Krestovnikov – Candidate of Law, Head of the Information and Publishing Department.
Moscow.
References
1. Koldin V.Ya, Ishchenko E.P., Krestovnikov O.A. Common information model vs. forensic characterization of a crime? Academic Law Journal = Akademicheskii yuridicheskii zhurnal. 2006. No. 4 (26). P. 39–502. (In Russ.)
2. Gill P., Jeffreys A.J, Werrett D.J. Forensic Application of DNA “Fingerprints”. Nature. 1985. Vol. 318. P. 577–579.
3. Dodd В.Е. DNA Fingerprinting in Matters of Family and Crime. Med. Sci. Law. 1986. Vol. 26. No. 1. Р. 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/002580248602600101
4. Evett I.W., Williams R.L. Review of the Sixteen Points Fingerprint Standard in England and Wales. Journal of Forensic Identification. 1996. Vol. 46. No. 4. Р. 49–73.
5. Burinskii E.F. Questioned document examination, its process and application. Saint Petersburg: Tip. SPb. T-va Pech. i Izd. Dela «Trud», 1903. VI, [2], 352 p. (In Russ.)
6. Potapov S.M. Principles of criminalistic identification. Soviet state and law = Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo. 1940. No. 1. P. 66–81. (In Russ.)
7. Shevchenko B.I. Scientific foundations of modern trace evidence analysis. Moscow: Tip. TASS, 1947. 54 p. (In Russ.)
8. Orlova V.F. The theory of forensic handwriting identification. Transactions of VNIISE. Issue 6. Moscow: VNIISE, 1973. 335 p. (In Russ.)
9. Mitrichev V.S. Forensic examination of materials, substances and manufactured articles. Saratov: Saratov University, 1980. 112 p. (In Russ.)
10. Shaver B.M. The subject and method of Soviet criminalistics. Socialist Legality = Sotsialisticheskaya zakonnost’. 1938. No. 6. P. 56–82. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Koldin V.Ya., Seitenov K.K., Krestovnikov O.A. Global Models of Criminalistics and Forensic Science. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2018;13(3):6-11. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2018-13-3-6-11
Views:
1440
Email this article 