Kriminalistická stopa: Studie o metodologických základech kriminalistické nauky o stopách

1. The work is a study in the methodological foundations of the criminalistic doctrine of traces. Before arriving by logical means to the knowledge of general classification criteria and to the classification of the trace itself, the author had to resolve the meaning of the term trace. He reached it not only by comparing the existing knowledge of the criminalistic theory, but above all by making thorough use of the Marxist theory of methodology, in particular of the Leninist reflection theory. In examining the problems under review, the author pursued the knowledge and elaboration of one of the most important criminalistic theories – that of the criminalistic doctrine of traces. The problems investigated concern the gnoseological aspect of the object of criminalistics, i.e. the knowledge of the regularities of the origin, preservation and extinction of the traces of a criminal offence. Knowledge of these regularities is the indispensable requisite of the social function criminalistics is to fulfil, i.e. to work out for the practice scientifically founded methods and corresponding means and processes for the detection, investigation and prevention of criminality. But the work does not deal with philosophical aspects of the investigated problems alone; it also treats of scientific special aspects and in particular of psychological aspects as well as of those of criminal procedure. 2. The author divided the examined problems in four chapters. In the first he examines and compares opinions of Czechoslovak and foreign criminalists on the meaning of the term, the content and the classification of the criminalistic trace, both of the material trace and of that in the consciousness. He argues above all against authors, who restrict the meaning of the criminalistic trace just to some material reflections of the criminal offence, and further against authors, who do not recognise the reflection of a criminal offence on the consciousness of man as a criminalistic trace. He also criticises those authors, who fail to appreciate enough the gnoseological aspect of the classification of the criminalistic trace, classifying it according to various secondary criteria or replacing the classification by a demonstrative or detailed enumeration of the individual kinds of traces. In the second chapter he deals with the reflection of a criminal offence and the origin of the trace. In this connection he examines the criminal offence from the aspect of reflection as a general quality of matter, peculiarity of the subject and object of the reflection of the criminal offence, the activity of the reflection oi the criminal offence, other typical features of interaction and reflection of the criminal offence with the world at large. On the basis of the Marxist theory reflection of the criminal offence, other typical features of interaction and reflection of the criminal offence with the world at large. On the basis of the Marxist theory and methodology the author exposes and justifies in this chapter the regularities of the origin, preservation and extinction of the traces of a criminal offence. On the basis of the known regularities of the origin, preservation and extinction of the traces of a criminal offence the author infers in the third chapter the peculiarities of the origin, preservation and extinction of the material traces and of the traces in the consciousness of man, and demonstrates their importance for the practice, in particular for the practice of the authorities acting in criminal proceedings. In the fourth chapter the author defines the term criminalistic trace, argues the fundamental criteria for its classification and looks for the place of the material trace in the system of material evidence. He points out the relationship between the criminalistic trace and the trace of a criminal offence. 3. The author holds that the criminalistic trace are changes incident to the investigated event, ascertainable, securable and de-codable by contemporary criminalistically relevant methods. He classifies the criminalistic trace according to interaction and the form of reflection as: A. the trace in material environment, B. the trace in the consciousness of man. The trace in material environment (A) is classified by him as: I. the trace produced by action without the individual qualities of the acting object having been reflected, II. the trace produced by action in which the individual or group qualities of the acting object were reflected. The trace produced by action without the individual qualities of the acting object having been reflected (A–I) is classified as: 1. the trace – the change of the qualities of the object in accordance with the kind of action by another object or by its inherent elements, 2. the trace – another change in the material environment. The trace – the change of qualities of the object in accordance with the kind of action by another object (A–I–1) is classified as: a) traces – chemical changes, b) traces – physical changes, c) traces – other changes. The trace – another change in the material environment (A–I–2) is classified as: a) traces – changes in the position of objects, b) traces of the existence or nonexistence of certain objects, c) traces – other changes. The trace – the change produced by action in which the individual or group qualities of the acting object were reflected (A–II) is classified as: 1. the trace of equality (remaining particles or parts of another substance), 2. the trace of the illustration of organic and inorganic objects. The trace of equality (A–II–1) containing information on the pattern of the acting object (entity) is classified as: a) the trace of solid substances, b) the trace of liquid substances, c) the trace of gaseous substances. The trace of the illustration of organic and inorganic objects (A—II—2) is classified as: a) the trace of the outside structure of the object, b) the trace of the functional and dynamic properties and habits. The trace containing the information on the outside structure of the acting object (A–II–2–a) is classified as: aa) the trace of similarity, bb) the trace of transformed equivalence. The trace of similarity (A–II–2–aa) is classified as: aaa) the plastic trace, aab) the planary trace (print). The plastic trace (A–II–2–aaa) is divided in: aaaa) the trace – imprint, aaab) the trace – the part mechanically separated from the whole. The planary trace (A–II–2–aab) is divided in: aaba) the trace of stratification, aabb) the trace of de-stratification, aabc) the peripheral trace. The trace of transformed equivalence (A–II–2–ab) is classified as: aba) the trace – groove, abb) the trace – system of grooves (shifting), abc) the trace – bruising. The trace of functional and dynamic properties and habits (A–II–2–b) is classified as: ba) the trace of walk and run, bb) the trace of voice and speach, be) the trace of handwriting and written expression, bd) the trace of other functional and dynamic properties and habits. According to the author the advantage of this classification is that the criterion of the classification of the criminalistic trace are the forms and kinds of interaction and reflection. The classification is from the methodological aspect most essential and fulfils best the gnoseological function in the detection and use of traces in criminalistics. At the same time it meets the requirements of another practical criminalistic criterion for the division of traces, i.e. the mechanism of the origin of the trace. The mechanism of the origin of the trace is, however, not regarded as a first rate criterion, since from the methodological aspect it is not right to rank traces in the consciousness just among the traces of illustration next to the material traces of illustration.