Human Identifcation and Anthropometric Identifcation: Correlation between Concepts
https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2019-14-1-66-69
Abstract
The article is devoted to the distinction between anthropometric identifcation and establishment of identity in the legal sense. The need for the distinction is due to the fact that for a long time (since the ‘50s of the 20th century) the terms ‘personal identifcation’ (establishment of identity) and ‘identifcation of a person’ were used as synonyms. However, this synonymy contradicts the content of the concepts of ‘person’s identity’ and ‘personal identifcation’. The issue of identity establishment does not relate to the problem solved by the anthropometric identifcation as well as by morphological identifcation, including based on fngerprints. The results of the identifcation can only be used in the conduct of operative investigation activities and investigative actions executed for the purpose of identity establishment. In legal terms, establishment of identity is a criminological problem. And the task of anthropometric identifcation is solved by conducting a forensic facial recognition when examining human images. It is therefore proposed to adhere to the distinction of these terms in courseware for issues relating to the use of person’s physical appearance characteristics in forensic inquiry, law enforcement practice in appointments of the forensic facial recognition and the use of their results in criminal and civil proceedings.
About the Author
A. M. ZininRussian Federation
Zinin Aleksandr Mikhailovich – Doctor of Law, Professor, Master Forensic Examiner at the Laboratory of Questioned Document Examination, the Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Russian Ministry of Justice; Professor of the Department of Forensic Sciences at Kutafin University
Moscow 109028, Moscow 125993
References
1. Grishenkova N.P., Lavrov D.N. A review of person identification methods using iris recognition. Mathematical Structures and Modeling. 2014. No. 1 (29). P. 43–64. (In Russ.)
2. Klak N.N. Problem of human identification. Journal of New Medical Technologies. 2012. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 389–391. (In Russ.)
3. Terziev N.V. Forensic anthropometric identification. Study guide. Moscow: M-vo vyssh. obrazovaniya SSSR. Vsesoyuz. yurid. zaoch. in-t, 1956. 131 p. (In Russ.)
4. Solntseva L.F. Anthropometric identfication. Theory and practice of forensic science. Digest. No. 1. Moscow: Gosyurizdat, 1955. P. 175–178. (In Russ.)
5. Arotsker L.E., Mozhar I.M. Identification by photos. Practice of forensic science. 1962. No. 6. (In Russ.)
6. Braichevskaya E.Yu., Zyuskin N.M. On the opportunities of anthropometric identification. The issues of forensic science. Materials of Scientific Conference (June 28 – July 2, 1960). Leningrad, 1960. P. 86–87. (In Russ.)
7. Peresunkin A.Yu. Anthropometric identification. Descriptive Portrait. Lecture. Moscow: MVSh MVD RSFSR, 1960. 50 p. (In Russ.)
8. Potashnik D.P. Identification by photos. Practice of forensic science. Digest 1-2. Moscow: Gosyurizdat, 1961. P. 188–191. (In Russ.)
9. Petrov V.P., Tsvetkov P.P. Identification by photos. Leningrad: Izd-vo Leningr. un-ta, 1966. 36 p. (In Russ.)
10. Zinin A.M., Lipovetskaya N.G. The application of portrait identification methods in the study of twins. The issues of anthropology. 1971. No. 39. P. 101–113. (In Russ.)
11. Matskevich I.M. Criminological portrait of a criminal. Lex Russica. 2008. No. 6. P. 1431– 1444. (In Russ.)
12. Parshukova L.P., Karlyshev V.M., Shakurova Z.A. Physiognomy. Rostov-on-Don: Feniks. 2004. 383 p. (In Russ.)
13. Samoshina Z.G. Anthropometric identification. Lecture. Moscow: Moscow State University, 1963. 39 p. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Zinin A.M. Human Identifcation and Anthropometric Identifcation: Correlation between Concepts. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2019;14(1):66-69. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2019-14-1-66-69