Traceology, criminalistics, and forensic science.

Area of Science:

• Forensic Science
• Criminalistics
• Traceology

Background:

• The role of forensic scientists has become overly confined to laboratories, leading to a conflation of forensic science and criminalistics.
• Current criminalists often function as reactive technicians, lacking significant crime scene involvement.
• This shift results in biased, inefficient, and erroneous forensic investigations with societal consequences.

Purpose of the Study:

• To address the decline of proactive, problem-defining roles in forensic investigations.
• To redefine ambiguous terms and concepts within forensic science and criminalistics.
• To propose 'traceology' as a more appropriate term for the scientific examination of event traces.

Main Methods:

• Conceptual analysis and redefinition of key terms in forensic science.
• Historical review of the term 'traceology' and its potential application.
• Argumentative commentary on the current state and future direction of criminalistics.

Main Results:

• The current practice of criminalistics is characterized by a reactive, laboratory-bound approach.
• The absence of scientific input at the crime scene compromises investigation integrity.
• The term 'traceology' offers a framework for a more comprehensive, science-based approach to examining evidence.

Conclusions:

• Recapturing the essence of criminalistics requires a shift towards proactive, science-driven crime scene investigation.
• The proposed term 'traceology' better reflects the scientific examination of physical evidence and event traces.
• Adopting 'traceology' can help restore the scientific rigor and effectiveness of forensic investigations.