Criminalistics' language: concept-terminological apparatus formation

In the special literature various definitions of the concept “science language” are offered [13-15], where the main features are as follows:

- the language of science is a synthetic concept of the methodology of science, which combines all the linguistic means used in science to express the acquired knowledge at a specific historical stage of its development [16];

- the language of science is a set of means of formation and justification;

- provisions of science, the conceptual apparatus of scientific theory together with the methods of proof and confirmation [17];

- the language of science is a tool for knowing the world and presenting the acquired knowledge [18];

- the language of science is a system of concepts, signs, symbols that are created and used by a particular field of scientific knowledge in order to obtain, reflect, process, preserve and use knowledge. It arises and is formed as an instrument of cognition of a certain sphere of phenomena and its specificity is determined both by the peculiarities of the sphere under study and by the methods of its cognition [19];

- the language of science is a specific sign system that serves as a material expression of the results of scientific cognitive activity, which can act as a natural language (language of direct communication) and artificial (signs, symbols, mathematical expressions, chemical formulas, etc.) [20].

Discovered by professor R.S. Belkin main trends in the development of the criminalistics' language remain relevant today. At the same time, there are modern trends in the development of means of expression in criminalistics (the use of computer technology and computer modelling, etc.), which requires updating the methodological basis of analysis. Criminalistics, like any science that deals with the acquisition of knowledge through the understanding of one or another side of objective reality, cannot do without individual words and their combinations that reflect certain concepts, i.e. without terms, in their totality (system), in other words without terminological apparatus. In this case, the terms mean a well-defined and suitable for use in science vocabulary. Scientific terminology of criminalistics, as a set of terms and special signs formed in the process of origin and development of criminalistics and those that serve to reflect the special concepts and names of typical objects of this science, and is a linguistic form of professional knowledge.

The concepts of criminalistics form a complex, multilevel, holistic system. In particular, the categories of criminalistics can be considered extremely general, such that are not generalised further within this science, concepts - for example, forensic techniques, forensic tactics, forensic methods, forensic recommendation, forensic technique, forensic tool, tactical operation, traces, tactics crime, method of crime, etc. These categories include other concepts that fall within their scope and are in a relationship of subordination. Thus, the category “trace of crime” includes “materially fixed traces of reflection” and “ideal traces” (“traces of human memory”), the category “modus operandi” - “method of preparation”, “method of commission” and “method of concealment”. Thus, the criminalistics' language is a dynamic conceptual system based on definitions and designations (terms, signs), which are a means and method of criminalistics thinking and are used in the description (fixation) of forensic information in the practice of lawyers [21].

The current state of development of criminalistics, the formation of promising students (theories) necessitated the introduction of a significant number of new concepts, terms, signs in its scientific apparatus. The innovations concern not only the general theory of criminalistics, but also its main sections - techniques, tactics and methods. The basis of the doctrine of the criminalistics' language is the theory of reflection, because each degree of reflection of reality in the human mind implies the need for cognitive procedure of reality and certain research procedures through the language form. In the philosophical literature it was noted that in the structure of the science language can be distinguished two sublanguages - the language of observation and the language of theory. The language of observation includes those statements of science that form the results of observation and experiment; the language of theory includes statements that are the result of logical reasoning [16]. In V.M. Pashchenko's interpretation, verbal scientific language is an intertwined unity of two complementary sublanguages: 1) language for describing real facts, phenomena and essences that exist independently of human, it is the so-called “object-essential verbal scientific sublanguage”; 2) the language of descriptions of research results and interpretations, generalisations, creation of scientific concepts and theories, this is the so-called “subject-knowledge verbal scientific sublanguage”. This sublanguage has all the definitions derived from the names of science. And if the first sublanguage serves as an empirical presentation of data, it is a language for defining the source materials of research - and presentation of the studied entities, the second - to reflect the processes of processing, understanding and verification of collected source material - empirical, theoretical and methodological [22].

The special literature also rightly emphasised that without the use of natural language it is impossible to explain and interpret the scientific provisions reflected in the concepts and terms of science [23]. In this case, it is mainly about verbal texts, which, of course, can be supplemented by meaningful symbols, formulas, models and accompanied (decorated) with pictorial elements: diagrams, graphs, drawings, maps and more. But, as I.L. Mikhailin emphasises, symbols and depicted elements do little without meaningful correct verbal text to inform a consumer of scientific knowledge [18]. In this regard, the criminalistics' literature drew attention to the fact that today its main part has not gone beyond natural language, and has not yet managed to construct a comprehensive system of formalised language operating scientific categories and concepts, as well as concepts of crime investigation [24]. At the same time, with the use of methods and concepts of formal logic, information theory, forecasting, higher mathematics in criminalistics, the question of developing sign systems arises, i.e. the replacement of vocabulary description with symbols, signs, formulas. In this regard, M.S. Polevoy once drew attention to the fact that the means and methods of criminalistics are based and created on the basis of means and methods of many natural and technical sciences, including mathematics and cybernetics. And if so, then in the language of criminalistics in its interaction with mathematics and cybernetics, it is impossible to assimilate elements of the latter [25]. Given this language of criminalistics, its conceptual and terminological apparatus must develop under certain criteria and conditions. According to R.S. Belkin modern trends in the criminalistics' language include the following:

1) expanding the range of concepts and definitions used - a reflection of both growth and qualitative changes in forensic knowledge, which can manifest itself in two directions:

a) in increasing the number of forensic definitions, i.e. definitions of such concepts, which only forensic science uses; b) in increasing the number of forensically interpreted definitions used in scientific and everyday language;

2) change of definitions - both replacement of some definitions by others, and specification of the definitions used;

3) differentiation of concepts and their definitions - the separation of definitions relating to the broadest forensic concepts - categories that are generic in relation to the definitions of concepts included in the content of these categories;

4) unification of criminalistics' terminology - reduction of terms defining the same object, or replacement of several accepted terms by one new one, which will exist not next to the old terms, but instead of them;

5) development of criminalistics' sign systems - formalisation of language criminalistics by creating unified systems of mathematical and other symbols that reflect certain forensic concepts [26].

It should be borne in mind that the successful formation of criminalistics' modern language is hindered by the following problems: ambiguity of terms; double variability in the use of terms (the peculiarity is that one word (phrase) has several meanings, i.e. most words are polysemous, while the term must accurately reflect a concept in science); inattention to the semantics of the word; excessive emotional colouring of terms; violation of logical sequence in the formulation of definitions; incorrect tracing (transliteration) of Russian equivalents; stylistic design of author's interpretations; inconsistency of the conceptual criterion and logical-stylistic organisation, which leads to the violation of the connecting connections of the term in the text material [10]. In addition, when formulating a concept it is necessary to adhere to the dialectical unity between the phenomenon of reality, concept and term. This unity is that the main, defining and primary in it is the phenomenon of reality. The concept is a reflection of this phenomenon in the minds of people, and the term serves as a lexical expression of the concept [27]. Since the middle of the last century, the terminological system of criminalistics has been experiencing a period of accelerated development. This is evidenced, on the one hand, by the emergence of new terms (e.g., forensic situation, forensic victimology), on the other - the replacement of existing ones with others, while maintaining the previous meaning of the term, its content (e.g., graphic examination - handwriting examination; microobjects - microtraces; forensic explosives - forensic explosive science, etc.) and changes in its content (for example, investigative tactics - forensic tactics; investigative version - forensic version). There is also a process of unification of terminology, which is associated, firstly, with the reduction of the number of terms denoting the same object, and, secondly, with the replacement of several accepted terms with one new [28].

The formation of the conceptual apparatus of criminalistics, its terminological system took place on the basis of various sources: words and phrases formed by applying various linguistic approaches, in particular, on the basis of Greco-Latin terminological elements (dactyloscopy, poroscopy, edgeoscopy, habitoscopy, phonoscopy, homeoscopy, odorology, homology (doctrine of an identity of an offender, etc.), lexical units borrowed from other foreign languages (diagnostics, tactics, information, etc.), vocabulary units of Russian origin and which are interpreted to the scientific apparatus of domestic criminalistics (detention “by hot traces” (following a hot scent), the establishment of the whole in parts, etc.).These processes and their results give scientists a reason to single out certain elements in the structure of the criminalistics' language. Ya. Radetskaya distinguishes three groups of terms that are represented in the criminalistics' language: 1) general scientific terms, which are used to achieve the stylistic design of theoretical works on criminalistics; 2) legal terms, the main fund of which is contained in legislative acts, and where the following are distinguished: a) terms of generalised meaning; b) intersectoral terminology; c) industry terminology; 3) the actual forensic terminology [10]. In other words, the concepts used in forensics can be divided into the general, adapted and forensic.

Analysis of the modern criminalistics' language allows the proposed innovations, provided they are evaluated, to be combined into three groups. The first includes concepts and terms that are really aimed at increasing the scientific potential of criminalistics, activation of its cognitive function. The second group consists of such concepts and terms that need clarification, coordination of positions. Finally, the third group contains concepts and terms, the feasibility of which causes significant criticism [29]. Consider in more detail, first of all, those that relate to the conceptual provisions of criminalistics, the definition of its nature, the elucidation of the object-subject area of research. In the early 1970s, a new scientific concept emerged, based on the so-called activity approach. According to this concept, the object of criminalistics research is the activity: on the one hand - criminal, on the other - detection, investigation and prevention of criminal acts. The proposed concept could not but affect the transformation of scientific views on the object-subject area of criminalistics, the formation of its conceptual apparatus. In the forensic literature, along with the term “criminal activity” [30; 31] the term “forensic activity” is increasingly used [32] and, as a consequence, there are proposals to consider forensics itself not only as a science and academic discipline, but also as a kind of practical activity [33]. In particular, V.Ya. Koldin notes that “the task of practical forensic research is to establish the truth in a particular criminal case, i.e. the truth of a single fact” [34]. M.P. Yablokov writes that “predicting the practical nature is associated with the prediction of the peculiarities of forensic activities for the detection and prevention of a particular crime” [35].

It seems appropriate to make some remarks on the above positions. First, criminalistics is not directly involved in the detection and investigation of a specific crime. It is known that this is the function of investigative and judicial bodies, which use a variety of knowledge, tools, methods and recommendations, including forensic, to perform this activity. Secondly, as noted by R.S. Belkin, “it is customary to distinguish between forms of activity in the fight against crime only by the nature of their legal regulation. From this point of view, there are operational and investigative, procedural forms of activity, but not forensic ... Ambiguous understanding of the term “criminalistics” - as a science and as a practice - is not appropriate as well as the use of the terms “forensic relations”, “forensic activities”. Thirdly, criminalistics reflects the most significant patterns inherent in the objects of its study, sets out general recommendations for typical investigative, investigative, expert situations. Therefore, forensic scientists are primarily faced with the task of developing the scientific basis for the introduction into criminalistics and expert practice of technical means, tactics and appropriate methods of detection and investigation of crimes. For similar reasons, the proposals on the introduction of such integration constructions as “forensic odorology”, “forensic psychology” and “forensic information” into the conceptual apparatus are not sustainable. In this case, the addition of the term “forensic” to the usual general scientific concepts not only does not enhance their meaning and does not expand the scope, but on the contrary creates a situation where they become the object of critical remarks.

Regarding forensic odorology and the attempt of some scientists to elevate it to the rank of a separate forensic theory or even science [36; 37], in this regard, it seems appropriate in the context of this issue to make some comments. First, integration processes can take place only in such areas of knowledge that have a relevant theoretical basis and are generally accepted. Especially when it comes to criminal proceedings and the procedure of proof. Secondly, it should be clearly understood that the integration of knowledge takes place as an objective natural process, and not at the request of individual researchers. Moreover, if there are no corresponding objective synthesising bases, then all attempts to unite certain knowledge are in vain, and the results of such a scientific search cannot be called anything other than forensic phantoms. Third, the integration of knowledge in criminalistics and new theoretical constructions should be formed taking into account its official, pragmatic function and based on the principles of criminal justice. Ignoring these principles can lead to significant methodological errors and inconsistencies with current legislation.

In this regard, as can be seen, position of V.D. Basay on the formation of a separate forensic doctrine - “forensic odorology” is quite vulnerable. At the same time, V.D. Basay for some reason calls “criminalistics odorology”partial (author's italics - V. Zh.) doctrine, while in criminalistics the term “separate doctrine (theory)” is accepted. Moreover, the author in his judgments on this issue is not consistent, because along with the term “partial criminalistics doctrine” uses the term “partial odorological doctrine”, which is not the same thing. The fact is that odoology itself as a field of knowledge is currently making only the first steps and is only in the process of formation. It lacks the proper tools to carry out appropriate odorological research with a high degree of representativeness of the results, and therefore efforts to combine odorological and criminalistics knowledge should be considered premature. V.D. Basay's thesis about the fundamental impossibility of instrumental study of odour traces is not convincing, because the author ignores the dialectic of scientific and technological progress. At the same time, proposals for laboratory examination of traces and samples of a human odour using a specially prepared dog detector and any other bioanalyser (as the author proposes to use rats' sense of smell) and issued in accordance with the conclusion of the commission odorological examination [37], that is by procedure document, contrary to applicable law and may not be considered appropriate.

Another debatable integration construction is “forensic psychology”. The founders of this concept V.O. Obraztsov and S.M. Bogomolova believe that “investigative psychology” inaccurately reflects the content of the relevant section of legal psychology, and therefore it is more correct to speak of “criminalistics psychology” as an integrative, generalising category, covering as investigative, so other types of psychology of forensic investigation in pre-trial criminal proceedings [38]. In author's opinion, in this case, these scientists make an epistemological error. Of course, certain branches of general psychology, including law, study the laws of the human psyche, which are manifested in the relevant sphere of social relations. As for jurisprudence, these relations are regulated by law and are implemented in such forms of activity as judicial, investigative, operational- search, criminal-executive, expert, etc.

Thus, if there is no criminalistics activity, i.e. the area where certain patterns of the human psyche are manifested, then it is not possible to identify the relevant field of knowledge that examines them, namely “forensic psychology”. This does not in any way deny the existence of integration links between criminalistics and legal psychology. These connections really exist and are manifested primarily in the aspect of the tactics development and their combinations of individual investigative actions. The remarks made concern only the fundamental impossibility of forming “forensic psychology” as an independent direction of branch knowledge. The use of the term “forensic information” should also be considered a linguistic innovation that needs separate consideration. Indeed, the information approach since the formation and development of computer science, cybernetics has been widely used, including in criminalistics. Increasingly, the terms “information” or “data” have been replaced by the term “information”, in the literature there is a conversation about information processes and structures in criminalistics [39], for example, about the interrogation as an information process [40]. Fascinated by the new scientific direction, some forensics have forgotten that the term “information” should be used only in a clearly defined subject area. In this regard, it can hardly be considered impeccable to introduce into the scientific apparatus of such a category as “forensic information” and, moreover, attempts to differentiate it into evidence and tactical [41]. Such attempts provoked critical remarks from some scientists, among whom the most categorical was R.S. Belkin. “Like forensic activity,” he noted, “the term “forensic information” is meaningless and pointless. It does not carry any semantic load, as it is impossible to determine which information is forensic and not procedural or operational, which are its only sources. In nature, there is no such information, but only information meaningful for forensic, which means any information that is used to solve forensic problems, regardless of its type and sources. And in terms of means, tasks and purpose of proof, information can only be evidential or indicative” [42]. And, as a summary, R.S. Belkin attributed this term to the category of so-called forensic phantoms.

The proposal of G.A. Matusowskiy to review the category “methods of crime investigation” in two aspects should also be considered debatable. First, as a process of investigation of crimes, as a specific activity of bodies and persons authorised by law, carried out on the basis of the use of forensic techniques, methods of investigative tactics, methods of investigation of certain types. Secondly, as a section of criminalistics, which contains a system of comprehensive forensic recommendations for the detection, investigation and prevention of certain types of crimes. “It is in the relationship of these two areas - practical and theoretical,” said G.A. Matusowskiy, “the method of investigating crimes reveals its purpose” [33]. As for the theoretical direction, there are no objections, because “methodology of crime investigation” is traditionally considered as a purely scientific category. At the same time, the desire to consider the category “methodology of crime investigation” as a synonym for “investigation process” or “investigation activity” contradicts the provisions of semantics and etymology, where the method is considered as a set of methods, techniques, operations of reality cognition. In other words, “methodology” is a set of scientific advice on the most effective ways to carry out activities to detect, investigate and prevent crimes, and not the activity itself. In addition, the proposal to introduce the term “automated crime investigation methodology” into the conceptual apparatus of forensic science should also be considered insufficiently substantiated [43]. Indeed, in the scientific and reference literature, guidelines for the optimal organisation of pre-trial investigation can be set out in a descriptive (most traditional) and formalised form, in the form of specific programs or algorithms. But programs and algorithms cannot fully reflect the content and structure of the descriptive method, and therefore the addition of the term “methodology” to the term “automated” does not seem correct. As it can be seen, the desire of individual authors to unjustified unification, simplification of certain terms, which leads to the emergence of such innovations, which cannot be called anything other than scientific jargon, should be recognised as another negative trend. It is worth proposing to replace the traditionally used term “theory of operational and investigative activities” with the term “ordology”, and “the process of implementing operational and investigative measures” - with the term “orthological regulations” [41]. Frankly, it is highly doubtful that the theory of criminalistics is in dire need of such unifications, as the latter lead to terminological looseness and cluttering of the science language.

CONCLUSIONS