Expectations in Law and Criminalistics: Issue Formulation

Abstract

The phenomenon of social expectations as a component of the legal norm and a factor determining the real status and behavior of a forensic expert is considered. The starting point is the concept of the rule of law, according to which law is not limited by law, but is formed by a wide range of social regulators: morality, traditions, cultural ideas, practices. They form a metanorm that is imposed on the law and often has a stronger influence on behavior than formal regulations. Existence substantiation of above-mentioned discrepancy determines the purpose of the article. Its achievement required the use of a number of general scientific and special methods. In the given context, forensic science appears not only as a procedural institution, but as a socio-cultural phenomenon. Its role is to transform specific expertise into evidence, but society expects much more from the expert than the law provides. These expectations are formed not only by legal norms, but also by cultural narratives, mass culture and ideas about science as a source of infallible truth. They are implicit in nature, but act as norms: non-compliance with them causes social sanctions regardless of the real capabilities of science or procedure. It is shown that the mechanism of formation of expectations is based on the trinity of status, expectation, and sanction. A forensic scientist as a bearer of special knowledge acquires a status partially determined by cultural images, and not only by law. It creates a gap between real and perceived status, which becomes a source of pressure, errors, and stigmatization. At the same time, science providing forensics with methods is itself a system of norms and can produce misconceptions that later turn out to be unsuitable for clarifying legal truth. Scientific novelty of the article lies in the introduction into the legal discourse of the category of “expectations” as a legitimate requirement of a participant in legal relations that follows not only from the law, but from social regulators in general that form the law. This makes it possible to explain why forensic science is under constant social pressure and why its cultural profile is much broader than the procedural one. The article opens up the prospect of further research into the role of culture in formation of legal norms and the need for public communication to reduce the gap between expectations and the real possibilities of forensic expert activity.