Ambiguity in the definition of the Russian classification of forensic examinations

The classification of forensic examinations by branch of knowledge provokes discussions mainly on two issues: the basis of classification and the related question of which forensic examinations are classified as forensic. This is primarily due to the formation of new types of expertise (due to the emergence of new objects and methods of expert research) and the need to determine their place in the General system of forensic examinations.

The first classification of forensic examinations was proposed by A. R. Shlyakhov four-level system (class-genus-species-varieties or groups), built on a complex criterion: subject – object-method. There were nine main classes of forensic examinations: forensic, forensic medical and psychophysiological, forensic engineering and transport, forensic engineering and technology, forensic technical, forensic accounting and financial and economic, forensic agricultural, forensic environmental, forensic biological examinations of objects of animal and plant origin. Later this classification was supplemented by another class of court art criticism expertise by J. G. B. Krugovoi, and later T. S. Volchetskaia suggested adding two more classes-forensic soil science and food examination.

This classification is currently generally accepted but has been subject to some rethinking in recent years. Quite reasonably, the complex criterion proposed by A. R. Shlyakhov is supplemented by the fourth feature – «the nature of special knowledge, which plays a dominant role in solving problems of this type of expertise».

There are different points of view on the grounds of the attribution of expertise to a class of crime. There are reasonable objections to the allocation of «non-traditional forensic» examinations and the attribution to them of video Phonographic, CAMMI, odorological (scent evidence analysis), and autographic examinations. Proponents of this provision justified this, first of all, by the possibility of carrying out individual identification within these examinations, as a distinctive feature of forensic examination. However, forensic identification is also performed in other forensic classes. It seems that the basis for the classification of forensic examinations is based on special knowledge in the field of criminology (forensic technology). If the examination is based on the use of special knowledge from other fields of science, then such expert research should not be considered as a forensic examination.

The so-called odorological examination is a forensic biological human scent evidence analysis. Video Phonographic and autographic examinations are also based on fundamental special knowledge of other Sciences, not criminology. It seems the reasonable opinion of A. G. Filippov, who believes that the basis for assigning expertise to the class of forensic should be considered used in their conduct of special methods developed in criminology. According to this criterion, the so-called traditional forensic examinations are considered to be forensic. These examinations can be performed by forensic experts who receive special expert education in higher educational institutions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. The above-mentioned «non-traditional forensic» examinations are conducted by experts with higher natural science, technical or linguistic education.

In addition to forensic examinations, the content of forensic biological, forensic medical, and psychophysiological examinations is also being reinterpreted.

Previously, objects of plant and animal origin were referred to as the forensic biological examination. The practice has shown that traces of human tissues and secretions are currently being investigated by experts-biologists with special education in the field of molecular biology and genetics, and to a lesser extent by experts, specialists in the field of medical biochemistry and Biophysics (and not actually medicine), researching the framework of forensic medical examination.

The very definition of such research in forensic medicine as the examination of material evidence is also subject to fair criticism since the concept of «material evidence» has its clear procedural definition (article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russian Federation) and it is not correct to refer it only to one special category of objects. Based on this, it is proposed to consider the study of traces of human tissues and secretions as a kind of forensic biological examination.

When new classes and types of forensic examinations appear, several problems arise:

• •    examinations are usually performed by persons who are far from legal proceedings and are guided by non-expert technologies;

• •    there are no forensic specifics;

• •    persons involved as experts often do not see the differences between forensic and scientific activities and do not know the basics of substantive and procedural law, and do not always understand the legal consequence of their conclusions for participants in legal proceedings.

In these conditions, the role of forensic expert science as a methodological and technological basis for the formation of new types of expertise is especially growing, so that this formation does not occur spontaneously, but by scientifically sound recommendations.