On the classification of forensic ballistic technologies

Iaremchuk Viktoriia Pavlovna Postgraduate student, Department of Forensic Research, St. Petersburg University of the MIA of Russia 198206, Russia, Leningrad region, Saint Petersburg, Pilyutov Pilot str., 1 vicktoria.yaremchukkk@yandex.ru

Agreeing with the opinion of T.V. Averyanova: "the question of classification is the question of the structure of scientific knowledge" ^{[1, p. 299]}, we believe that the theoretical part of the scientific concept of the use of forensic technologies in the organization and production of examinations, including forensic ballistic, will not be fully considered if we we will not classify them according to the grounds we have determined.

To date, the problems of classification in forensic examination can be found in a variety of works by forensic scientists engaged in research in any field of forensic examination (classification of tasks, research methods, examinations, etc.). In connection with the technologization of various fields of activity of the society, which has also been introduced into forensic examination, there was a need for classification of forensic-expert technologies that are so actively used to solve expert problems of various nature and scope.

When considering some approaches to the construction of the theory of the use of forensic technologies, only two of them present their classification - the approach of M.Ya. Segai and V.K. Strinzhi, as well as S.M. Pleshakov.

The authors of the first approach, M.Ya. Segai and V.K. Strinzha, identify the general forensic technology and its particular variations ^{[2, p. 7]}. The basis for such a division is the level at which activities are carried out for the organization and production of certain types (types) of forensic examinations.

This approach can be distinguished as the first and fundamental stage – the beginning of the classification process of forensic technologies, and due to the prescription of its appearance, it is necessary to take into account the impossibility of classification on other grounds that appeared during the development of forensic examination, taking into account time and scientific and technological progress.

The author of the second, later approach, S.M. Pleshakov, based on the provisions of the first approach, expands the list of grounds for classifying forensic expert technologies and divides forensic expert technologies according to the principle of belonging to a forensic expert institution, depending on the scope of regulation, by expert specialization (grouping of private expert technologies of specific expert specialties by objects and methods of expert research) and by the nature of novelty ^{[3, pp. 41-44]}.

We believe that this approach, which offers the considered grounds for classifying forensic technologies, is the next necessary stage and element of the process of forming the theoretical part of the scientific concept of using forensic technologies in the organization and production of examinations, since it takes into account innovative forensic technologies based on scientific and technical achievements of that time period.

When analyzing the above approaches, we pay attention to the division based on the "principle of belonging to a forensic expert institution" by S.M. Pleshakov, which in modern conditions does not allow to fully distinguish forensic technologies. For example, the methodology for establishing the name of the cartridge, determining the weapon for which it is intended, and the suitability of the cartridge for firing a shot, within which forensic ballistic technologies are implemented, is the same for both the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. Also, the basis "by the nature of novelty" proposed in this approach, in our opinion, is not suitable for the main property of an object by which it can be classified, since it is dynamic.

Many years have passed since the development of this approach and the scientific and technical potential of forensic examination does not stand still, technical means and methods are constantly appearing that make it possible to increase the efficiency of forensic experts and optimize it. In addition, we draw attention to the fact that, despite the existence of classifications of different orders and levels, so far the problem of classification of forensic ballistic technologies has not been considered.

In the approach of S.M. Pleshakov, as forensic ballistic technologies, along with others, "the study of firearms and ammunition and the study of traces and circumstances of a shot" are presented in the "block of technologies of traditional forensic examination" ^{[3, p. 42]} without disclosing their contents, which is due to the author's research of forensic technologies without delving into a specific expert specialty (a separate type of forensic examination).

Based on the approaches discussed above, we consider it possible to propose a different classification of forensic expert, and in particular, forensic ballistic technologies.

"As the basis for classifications, it is necessary to choose the features that are most significant for the objects of classification" ^{[3, p. 40]}. Due to the fact that we are considering forensic technology and its types, we consider it important to clarify the fact that two classifications will be carried out on different grounds. In the first case, the objects of classification are forensic technologies in general, which can be divided into the following main features:

I. By usage level:

1) general forensic technology (for all objects of forensic examination),

2) specific forensic technologies (subdivided into separate types of forensic examinations), for example, forensic automotive, forensic automotive, forensic ballistic technologies, etc.

II. By subject:

1) forensic technologies used by the head of a state forensic institution;

2) forensic technologies used by a forensic expert.

III. By the nature of the expert technology:

1) management,

2) organizational,

3) control tests,

4) cognitive or research.

IV. According to the tasks to be solved:

1) expert technologies for solving problems of forensic examination as a branch of scientific knowledge:

a) expert technologies for improving existing methods and techniques in expert practice;

b) expert technologies for providing an automated workplace for an expert;

c) expert technologies for evaluating the expert's opinion;

d) expert technologies for training specialists in a certain field of forensic examination.

In other words, this block of expert technologies is aimed at developing and improving the scientific foundations of forensic examination, its methodological and organizational and legal support, as well as issues of expert training.

2) expert technologies for solving problems of practical expert activity:

a) expert technologies to increase the degree of objectivity of expert conclusions;

b) expert technologies for optimizing the form and content of expert opinions;

c) expert technologies for systematization, storage and use of information data, etc. ^[4];

3) expert problem solving technologies as a "production" element of expert practice:

a) expert technologies for solving identification expert tasks;

b) expert technologies for solving diagnostic expert tasks.

The views of forensic scientists on the third set of tasks, or rather on their division, were not unambiguous. So, among the tasks of forensic examination
A.I. Vinberg and N.T. Malakhovskaya distinguish identification, diagnostic, situational and classification expert tasks ^{[5, pp. 155-181]}; A.I. Rudichenko – identification, diagnostic classification tasks and diagnostic tasks of condition research ^{[6, pp. 97-99]}; V.A. Puchkov – identification, situational, restoration, classification, diagnostic ^{[7, p. 12]}; T.V. Tolstukhina – identification, classification, diagnostic, restorative, prognostic, retrospective ^{[8, p. 19]}; E.R. Rossinskaya, E.I. Galyashina and A.M. Zinin – identification and diagnostic ^{[9, p. 86]}.

V. According to the technical and forensic means used:

1) traditional,

2) innovative ^{[10, 11]}.

VI. By stages of expert research:

1) Preliminary,

2) Detailed,

3) evaluating the results and drawing conclusions.

The classification of forensic technologies proposed above can also be applied to forensic ballistic technologies, but with mandatory consideration of the features of objects, tasks and methods of forensic ballistic examination.

So, we propose to divide forensic ballistic technologies into the following types:

I. By the object of the study:

"1) firearms, their parts, parts, accessories and blanks;

2) firearms of limited destruction, gas and signal weapons, pneumatic weapons, construction and installation pistols, various products structurally similar to weapons, their parts and details, etc.;

3) cartridges for firearms, gas weapons, firearms of limited destruction, signaling devices, individual elements of cartridges;

4) materials, tools, mechanisms used for the manufacture of firearms, as well as for the manufacture and equipment of cartridges and their elements;

5) traces of parts and parts of weapons on shells and casings;

6) traces of a shot on obstacles and objects of inanimate nature;

7) the material situation of the place of production of shots;

8) materials of the criminal case containing information about the circumstances of the use of firearms, traces of a shot, etc." ^{[12, p. 17]}.

Taking into account the necessary addition of the general classification in terms of the division of forensic technologies used to solve problems, it is necessary to disclose the classification of tasks of forensic ballistic examination as a "production" element of expert practice.

Among the tasks of forensic ballistics there are: identification, diagnostic and situational ^{[13, p. 8-9]}; identification and diagnostic ^{[14, p. 93]}, etc.

While agreeing with the opinion of the author of the latter approach and the division of tasks presented in his works, we believe that identification and diagnostic tasks are the main ones.

II. By the nature of the tasks being solved:

1) technologies for solving diagnostic problems:

"It is advisable to divide diagnostic tasks based on the elements of the subject of forensic diagnostics – the nature, condition, properties and relationships of the objects under study:

a) the tasks of determining nature:

– determination of the object's belonging to the group of small arms, gas-fired barrel weapons, structurally similar to non-combat weapons;

– establishment of the object's belonging to cartridges of small arms, gas-fired barrel weapons, structurally similar to non-combat weapons;

– determination of the type, model and sample of the weapon, cartridge sample;

– determination of the object's belonging to the main parts of small firearms;

– establishment of the object's belonging to the sound and flame suppression devices (silencers);

– which cartridge are the bullets and casings presented?;

– what is the number of the fraction or buckshot submitted for research;

– which model of weapon fired the bullets and fired the casings;

– is the trace on the capsule of the sleeve a trace of a misfire;

– is the injury a firearm;

– what is the diameter of the projectile that caused the damage;

– mono or polysnaryad caused damage;

– is there any damage caused when firing a weapon with a silencer;

– what is the method of manufacturing the object;

– have bullets been fired and shell casings fired in homemade weapons;

– is there any damage caused by firing from a homemade weapon;

b) the tasks of determining the state of the object:

– establishing the serviceability and suitability for firing weapons, structurally similar non-combat products;

– determination of the possibility of firing a weapon without pulling the trigger;

– determination of the degree of wear of parts, parts and mechanisms of weapons by traces on bullets and cartridges;

– establishment of the fact of damage formation in conditions of energy insufficiency of the projectile;

c) tasks for determining the properties of objects:

– establishment of the possibility of targeted firing of weapons;

– the range of the bullet when firing from a certain model or a specific instance of a weapon;

– the range of the striking effect of the bullet (projectile);

– the speed of the bullet at a certain range when in contact with an obstacle;

d) tasks for determining the relations of objects:

– determination of the direction and distance (distance) of the shot;

– setting the number and sequence of shots;

– determination of the mechanism of formation of gunshot damage;

– establishing the location of the shooter;

– the position of the victim's body (body parts) to the muzzle of the weapon barrel at the time of the shot;

– establishing the actions of the participants of the event at the time of the shot;

– the possibility of the victim or suspect performing certain actions under specific conditions" ^{[14, pp. 93-95]};

2) technologies for solving identification problems:

a) investigation of rifled small arms by traces on:

– casings,

– bullets;

b) investigation of smoothbore small arms by traces on fired shells.

III. According to research methods:

1) technologies for analyzing research objects;

2) technologies for preparing samples for comparative research;

3) technologies of expert experiment

4) Object comparison technologies;

5) technologies for evaluating research results;

6) technologies for the preparation of material illustrating the progress and results of the study.

The classifications of forensic and forensic ballistic technologies considered by us are not exhaustive due to the processes of constant development and transformation of scientific and technical means and methods of forensic examination and forensic ballistics, as well as the tasks that arise before them that require modern solutions. Therefore, we believe that various classifications on grounds other than those proposed above take place.

Nevertheless, the analysis of previously existing approaches to the classification of forensic technologies allowed us to identify the relevant grounds and highlight the currently existing types of forensic technologies. As well as consideration of the classification of forensic technologies in general, it became the basis for the classification of forensic ballistic technologies, in particular, and their further detailed study.