Improving the activities of pre-trial investigation and judicial review largely depends on the increased use of special knowledge in forensic investigative practice and, above all, the involvement of an expert and their analysis. The relevance of the subject matter is explained by the need to introduce new forms and approaches to evaluating the reliability of expert opinions, in particular with the involvement of independent specialists of the corresponding speciality. The purpose of this study was to provide arguments regarding the expediency of attracting knowledgeable persons as reviewers to evaluate the objectivity and completeness of forensic analysis, the correctness of the methods and techniques applied by the expert, and the validity of the opinion. To achieve this purpose, the following general scientific and special research methods were used: Aristotelian, comparative legal, functional, sociological, statistical, system and formal legal analysis, legal modelling, and forecasting. It was established that in the vast majority of countries of the world, except Ukraine, an independent, knowledgeable person with special knowledge in the corresponding field is involved to help evaluate the reliability of an expert opinion. It was proved that contacting knowledgeable persons to evaluate the objectivity, validity, completeness of expert research helps establish the causality between the identified features of the object of analysis and the fact that is subject to establishment, and also gives grounds for determining the affiliation, admissibility, reliability, and sufficiency of the expert opinion. At the same time, a specialist's review cannot serve as a source of evidence, but only has an auxiliary (advisory, technical) nature and can serve as a basis for appointing a second (additional) forensic analysis or a cross-examination of the expert and the reviewer. To exercise the rights of individuals to fair justice, it is proposed to introduce this procedure for evaluating the reliability of expert opinions in Ukraine, with the necessary changes in the current procedural legislation of Ukraine to provide an opportunity for participants in criminal proceedings and the victim to attract knowledgeable persons as reviewers of expert opinions
Conceptual approaches to formation and application of certain criminalistic doctrines (theories) as scientific constructions forming the basis of criminalisctic general theory structure and developing the level of theoretical and methodological basis of this science are considered. The author's opinion of Specific Criminalisctic Doctrine (Theory) concept is offered and proposals are made regarding systematization of specific criminalisctic studies, their place in the structure of the criminalistic general theory. It is proposed to allocate two blocks in the structure of the general theory: 1) criminalistic science based essentials including specific criminalistic doctrines (theories) of general scientific level about object, subject, methods, scope of research, system, nature, conceptual apparatus and criminalistic categories (Criminalistic language), its interscientific relations and place in the system of knowledge, development history and the present state; 2) criminalistic theories (doctrines) of a separate scientific level relating to research of patterns that are part of the research subject of criminalistics reveal its essence and specifics. It is emphasized that regularity nature exploring each of specific criminalistic doctrines (theories) determines the order of their ordering in the structure of general theory. Thus between subjects of general criminalistic theory and specific criminalistic doctrines (theories) there are relations of subordination of the whole and part. It is noted that modern system of specific criminalistic doctrines (theories) is dynamic and its improvement is conditioned by the needs of judicial and investigative practice, by the development of related knowledge branches, by the general theory and the most specific criminalistic doctrines, by the relation change and relationships between them. Criteria that should correspond to a specific criminalistic doctrine (theory) are defined. In particular, attention was drawn to the fact that each specific criminalistic doctrine (theory) should have object, subject and research method, reveal its content and nature of relations with other doctrines (theories), define the purpose, tasks, functions and place in criminalistic system, be formed on a certain scientific hypothesis, have necessary empirical basis, as well as the corresponding degree of consolidation determining the possibility of identifying certain regularities expanding and clarifying the subject of criminalistic science in general. Controversial issues regarding this problem are separated; optimizing scientific development ways in this field of knowledge are outlined.
The genesis and current condition of scientific approaches to defining methods in criminalistics are considered. It is noted that, despite the significant importance for the formation of the methodology of criminalistics science, no separate doctrine of its methods has been created yet. Conversely, scientists offer different definitions and classification constructions of methods of this science. There is not always a justifiable division of criminalistics methods into research methods and methods of practical activity. It is emphasized that the introduction of a single, unified, consistent classification of methods in criminalistics science is a prerequisite for the further effective scientific research in this area of knowledge and the solution of praxeological tasks in the activity of judicial investigative bodies, expert institutions, operational units. Finding out established approaches to the classification of methods in science of criminalistics will contribute to the final formation of the modern scientific criminalistics paradigm. In view of the results of the analysis of scientific approaches, it is proposed to divide the methods in forensics into two varieties, using the following terms: 1) methods of criminalistics that means methods of studying the subject of research of this field of knowledge, carrying out scientific research; 2) criminalistics methods, that is, the optimal methods of action of authorized subjects that are the result of the conducted research and recommended for practical use. Methods of criminalistics should be grouped into the following levels: philosophical, general scientific (methods of empirical research, methods of theoretical research, general logical methods), separate scientific (special) (borrowed, transformed, especially criminalistics). In turn, forensic methods can be divided into: methods of collecting, recording and investigating evidence; methods of using forensic and special techniques; methods of conducting individual investigative (search) actions; methods of designing and testing investigators, court, expert versions and construction of forecasting models, etc. The above points out that in the forensic scientific knowledge there is a complex, dynamic, subordinated system of numerous methods of different levels, spheres of action, directions, which are realized taking into account specific conditions and subject of research. At the same time, this system is open and constantly updated with new methods as a result of their development and renewing.
У статті розглянуто доцільність і можливість формування криміналістичних методик судового розгляду окремих категорій кримінальних справ. Наголошено, що потреба у формуванні саме цього різновиду криміналістичних методик зумовлена розширенням сфери криміналістичних досліджень і їх розповсюдженням на судову стадію кримінального процесу. Зазначено, що методики судового розгляду окремих категорій кримінальних справ мають відрізнятися від методик розслідування і не можуть будуватися за їх зразками, оскільки у суду немає потреби повністю повторювати весь складний шлях пізнання, який був пройдений під час досудового розслідування. Задля реалізації ідеї побудови криміналістичних методик судового розгляду запропоновано переглянути підходи до структури криміналістичної методики як розділу криміналістики, виокремивши в ньому методики розслідування злочинів та методики судового розгляду окремих категорій кримінальних справ, розробити принципи формування та основні підходи до побудови цього різновиду криміналістичних методик.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.