10
Principles and
Practice of Criminalistics
4.
Forensic Science and Criminalistics
So far, we have explained to you our understanding of the forensic part and
the science part of the term forensic science. But where does this leave us?
Better men and women than we have tackled this same semantic problem.
The term
criminalistics
, derived from the German
Kriminalistic
, was coined
in the late 1800s, probably by Hans Gross, in an attempt to describe better
the emerging discipline of “police science.”
Criminalistics
has the unfortunate
property of being even longer and harder to pronounce than forensic science.
This may lead to its common confusion with
criminology
, the application of
psychology and
sociology to crime, criminals, and the judicial system. Per-
haps because of its seemingly unwieldy and slightly esoteric nature, the term
criminalistics
has been left to the crime laboratories. In the United States the
job of the crime laboratory (public or private) is to examine physical evidence
that arises as a result of a criminal event; private laboratories extend their
services into the venue of civil law.* The person who analyzes evidence in a
crime laboratory may be properly referred to as an analyst, a forensic scientist,
or a criminalist.
This practical definition of criminalistics has taken on a life of its own,
expanding to encompass a more general philosophy
and cognitive frame-
work. It is this forensic way of thinking that will comprise the central theme
of this book. Although we discuss many specific examples and practical
applications, they find a common root in the cognitive framework we will
describe. We do not take credit for inventing this approach; it has clearly
evolved with the discipline. However, little attempt has been made in the
literature to define the paradigm of criminalistics in an organized fashion.
By nature, criminalists tend to be fiercely independent thinkers, sometimes
to a fault. This has slowed a convergence of ideas in the field. While the
autonomy of the individual criminalist must be preserved, it is also essential
to formulate a common platform from which to explore each investigation.
The
dictionary definitions of
criminalist
and
criminalistics
(
Webster’s
,
1996) contribute little to our understanding and are, in fact, discordant with
each other, reflecting the general confusion in this area. Webster’s suggests
the following:
criminalist
(n.) 1. an expert in criminalistics. 2. one who studies or practices
criminology; criminologist. 3. an expert in criminal law.
criminalistics
(n.) 1. The scientific study and evaluation of physical evidence
in the commission of crimes. 2. the science dealing with the detection of
crime and the apprehension of criminals.
* In Europe, where the term criminalistics originated, the laboratory’s work may be less
restricted.
8127/frame/ch01 Page 10 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:32 AM
Introduction
11
An expert in criminal law is not a criminalist at all, but
a criminal lawyer
(pun optional) and, as we have discussed previously, criminology is the study
of the psychological and social aspects of criminal behavior. Although, “the
science dealing with the detection of crime” is accurate, the “apprehension
of criminals” falls strictly outside the purview of the scientist. The first
definition of criminalistics, “The scientific study and evaluation of physical
evidence in the commission of crimes,” is new to this edition of Webster’s
and is, in fact, an accurate if skeletal description.
Van Heerden, in his 1982 book
Criminalistics
, takes a somewhat novel
approach to relating forensic science and criminalistics. He suggests that a
forensic expert is an expert in only one discipline (e.g., chemistry or medi-
cine) and that one can perform a limited examination of physical evidence
for forensic purposes without being a criminalist. While
we strongly disagree
that anyone without at least an appreciation of the larger criminalistic scope
should ever lay hands on a piece of evidence, Van Heerden’s description of
criminalistics as the more general discipline required to integrate a variety
of physical analyses provides a useful starting point. He joins with Ceccaldi
(1974) in recognizing that “Because of its multidisciplinary, composite and
coordinating nature, criminalistics is not regarded as a separate* disci-
pline…”; it relies on the fundamental sciences for its methods and techniques
and depends on progress in those sciences for advancement. Van Heerden
quotes Ceccaldi as saying that criminalistics is “a
technique in thinking; an
art in the collection of facts; in other words as a systematized scientific
approach to the solution of crime problems on the basis of scientifically
acquired facts.” He further quotes Jones and Gabard (1959) to say, “In this
sense criminalistics is equated with
scientific crime detection
: in other words
the application of science and scientific equipment to the analysis, compar-
ison and identification of objects and phenomena associated with legal prob-
lems,” and Williams (1967) “in an effort to reveal the full truth of criminal
activities.”
The California Association of Criminalists (CAC)
defines criminalistics as
That professional occupation concerned with the scientific analysis and
examination of physical evidence, its interpretation, and its presentation in
court. It involves the application of principles, techniques and methods of
the physical sciences and has as its primary objective a determination of
physical facts which may be significant in legal cases.
The American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) defines criminalistics
in a slightly different way as
*
We understand separate, in this context, to mean autonomous.
8127/frame/ch01 Page 11 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:32 AM
12
Principles and Practice of Criminalistics
The analysis, comparison, identification, and interpretation of physical evi-
dence. The main role of the criminalist is to objectively apply the techniques
of the physical and natural sciences to examine physical evidence, thereby
prove the existence of a crime or make connections.
A concrete definition of the profession that we call criminalistics remains
both elusive and morphotic. In large measure, this derives from our acknowl-
edged role as the flea on the hair of the dog on the leash of the judicial system.
As the needs and expectations of the criminal justice system change, our
contribution shifts accordingly. Perhaps a circumscribed
definition is neither
appropriate nor useful.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
