On the Teaching of Criminalistics

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the study is to develop and integrate criminalistics research and education.
Methodology: The study provides a detailed comparative analysis of criminalistics as a scientific discipline, with particular attention to its multidirectional dual character and internal tensions.
Findings: 1) Criminalistics may be understood as a process marked by the expansion and enrichment of circumstantial evidence. 2) Criminalistics is still a relatively young scientific discipline. 3) Forensic techniques cannot be codified in the strict sense; nevertheless, the codification of criminal procedure law provides significant guarantees and procedural frameworks for their application. 4) Forensic techniques develop considerably faster than investigative tactics. 5) There is a lack of an independent scientific institute devoted specifically to criminalistics; the potential role of the NSZKK in this regard requires further clarification. 6) Expert identification within investigative tactics may be understood as a form of micro-level proof, in contrast to macro-level proof concerning the criminal case as a whole.
Value: The study contributes to the deepening of criminalistics research and to raising the quality of criminalistics education. It seeks to promote the integration of criminalistics teaching in law enforcement education and legal education. It also draws attention to the relationship between proof at the level of the criminal case as a whole, or macro-level proof, and proof within expert examination, or micro-level proof. In this context, it highlights the serial and parallel relationships between major and minor indicia, as well as the importance of probabilistic elements. This is because, as a general rule in criminal cases, conclusions are drawn from effects to causes, a process that is necessarily alternative in nature and, in a sense, plurale tantum.