Use of forensic knowledge in areas of law enforcement other than criminal procedure

Abstract

The article proves the expediency and urgent need to use the tools, techniques and methods developed in the science of criminology in other areas of legal and other law enforcement activities other than criminal procedure. There is a tendency to expand the fields of application of forensic knowledge, as well as to increase the objects of attention of modern criminology without changing traditional ideas about the objects and subject of this science. The possibilities of criminalistics in solving problems arising in specific situations (conditions) of using criminalistic knowledge in ensuring civil (civil, arbitration) proceedings, administrative proceedings and customs proceedings are shown. At the same time, it is shown that forensic (expert) methods and technologies of identification (fingerprinting, habitoscopy, DNA identification, etc.), as well as technologies for detecting counterfeiting of banknotes and securities remain unchanged in the listed forms of procedural activity. Without any modifications, they can be used in criminal, civil, administrative proceedings; operational search, customs, banking or management activities, as well as in the field of forensic support and business protection (entrepreneurial activity). Attention is drawn to the fact that in order to master all the competencies listed in the educational standards of higher legal education, teaching forensic (professional) thinking at all levels of legal training should become a core task of criminology, which will be solved based on the use of methods of logic, psychology and other sciences, using game theory, reflexive management, factual analysis, information modeling, etc.

References

1. Baev, O.Y. (2002). Forensic Advocacy as a Subsystem of Forensic Science. In: L.Y., Drapkin and V.N., Karagodin (Eds.). Professional Activity of a Lawyer as an Object of Forensic Research (pp. 5–20). Ekaterinburg (in Russ.).
2. Gross, G. (2002). Handbook for Forensic Investigators as a System of Forensic Science. Moscow (in Russ.).
3. Zhuravlev, S.Y. and Krepysheva, S.K. (2015). Forensic Methodology and Tactics: The Context of the Modern Understanding of the Role of Forensic Science in Legal Activity and Legal Education. In: M.A., Lushechkina (Ed.). Modern Forensic Science: Problems, Trends, Prospects. Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference Dedicated to the 90th Anniversary of the Birth of Professor N.P. Yablokov (pp. 49–53). Moscow (in Russ.).
4. Zorin, G.A. (2002). Theoretical Foundations of Forensic Science. Minsk (in Russ.).
5. Koldin, V.Y. (2015). Forensic Science in University Education in Russia. In: M.A., Lushechkina (Ed.). Modern Forensic Science: Problems, Trends, Prospects. Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference Dedicated to the 90th Anniversary of the Birth of Professor N.P. Yablokov (pp. 71–74). Moscow (in Russ.).
6. Lushechkina, M.A. (Ed.). (2008). Forensic Science in the Law Enforcement System: Conference Proceedings. Moscow (in Russ.).
7. Volchetskaya, T.S. (Ed.). (2012). The Situational Approach in Legal Science and Law Enforcement. Proceedings of the international scientific and practical conference "Current Issues of Using the Situational Approach in Legal Science and Law Enforcement," dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the scientific school of forensic situationology. Kaliningrad (in Russ.).