V. Korzh

Summary

The article analyzes the pseudoscientific definitions of the criminal and procedural legislation «criminal offense and criminal infraction», which contradict the constitutional, criminal law and legislation, the theoretical provisions of criminalistics on the object, the subject and the method of crime, the criminalistic characteristics of crimes, methods of investigation of certain types of crimes; create interdisciplinary legal conflicts and it is suggested ways to solve them. Disputed questions about the restriction of the field of science of criminalistics, the expansion of its subject, the concept of criminalistics prosecutor, the concept of criminalistics lawyer and concluded that it is not advisable to artificially create criminalostics for lawyers, criminalistics for the state prosecutor, as well as developed the science of forensic recommendations, prions, methods used in practice by an investigator, a prosecutor in a pre-trial investigation, a state prosecutor, a defender, a judge during criminal proceedings, a criminal proceedings and substantiated conclusion that no objective conditions for the expansion of the subject of forensic science.The concept of increasing the number of sections of criminalistics, improvement of its system and justified the traditional four-element system of modern science of criminalistics, which is adequate to its subject, defines the main directions of the development of criminalistics, consistent with the principles of systemicity, tested by practice and recognized by criminalistics schools, it is proposed to improve the system of criminalistics in the presence of objective prerequisites, systematically structural justification.