The essence of this method is relatively simple: a comparison of individual social phenomena and processes in order to discover their similarities and differences. Based on the revealed similarity, a hypothetical or sufficiently substantiated conclusion is made, for example, about their social homogeneity, more or less similar content, the general direction of their development, etc. In this case, the known data about one of the compared phenomena or processes can be used to study others. The differences in the studied phenomena and processes revealed in the course of the comparative analysis indicate their specificity and, possibly, the uniqueness of some of them.

From what has been said, it follows that the method of comparative analysis is largely based on such a general scientific method as analogy. At the same time, in the comparative analysis of social phenomena, such general scientific methods thinking and cognition, such as analysis and synthesis, modeling, induction, deduction, etc.

The system of categories also corresponds to these methods, i.e. most general concepts, within the framework of which the mental procedures of comparative analysis are performed: “comparison”, “similarity”, “difference”, “object of comparison”, “subject carrying out comparative analysis” (with its views, ideological attitudes and value orientations), “angle of vision” compared phenomena”, “whole”, “part”, “segmentation” (dividing the whole into separate segments for the purpose of their study), “social homogeneity” and “social heterogeneity” of the studied phenomena and processes, “comparison method”, etc.

The main value of comparative analysis is to obtain new information not only about the properties of the compared phenomena and processes, but also about their direct and indirect relationships and, possibly, about the general trends in their functioning and development. As the French researchers M. Dogan and D. Pelassi rightly point out, “although at first the comparison may be caused by the search for information, it is at the same time the key to cognition. This is what makes it one of the most fruitful lines of thought.”

Comparative analysis contributes to a critical review of the researcher's views on certain social phenomena and processes that have developed during his study of a particular country and which he is ready to consider universal, i.e. acceptable to many other countries. Nevertheless, a comparative analysis will reveal specific features characteristic of different countries that were not previously known to the researcher, the groundlessness of claims to the universality of his previous views, which are characterized by the concept of "ethnocentrism" (i.e. , especially his own).

So, a comparative analysis of various phenomena and processes public life contributes to a deeper understanding of common properties and differences, trends in their development, as well as a more informed critical assessment of the experience of their country and other countries. This, in turn, raises the problem of mastering the experience of these countries, expanding cooperation with them in the economic, political, scientific and other spheres of public life.

Benchmarking mechanism

Earlier, some components of the mechanism for the comparative analysis of social phenomena and processes were already mentioned: general scientific methods of cognition (analogy, analysis, synthesis, etc.) and the logical apparatus (first of all, the system of categories used in the logical operations of comparative analysis, its inherent judgments and conclusions).

Consider now such a comparative analysis procedure as segmentation: division

the whole into segments and the selection of those that will be subject to comparative analysis.

Thus, it is possible to single out such links in the economic process in a particular society as the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of created wealth, and then explore each one. At the same time, data on them can be compared with data on similar parts of the economic process in other countries, and their comprehensive comparative analysis can be carried out. From the system existing in different countries political relations can be distinguished, for example, relations legislature and also conduct their comparative analysis. In both cases, phenomena of the same type are singled out, which makes it possible to carry out their comparative analysis in more detail and depth.

The objects of comparative analysis can be social processes - economic, political, ideological and others, as well as their components, including the subjects of these public processes: classes, nations, others social groups, various elites, individuals, as well as diverse social institutions.

Segmentation as a method of comparative analysis involves the study of not only structural properties of the phenomenon under study, but also the nature of its functioning within the framework of the whole (for example, a comparative analysis of the activities of various elites or political parties in different societies). At the same time, it should be remembered that only when studying the functioning of any social phenomenon within the framework of the whole, including the corresponding economic or political system or the whole society, can one obtain reliable knowledge about its real existence and role in society, because it functions and always manifests itself in context of a given society.

Important milestones comparative analysis are the processing of the received data, their systematization and scientific interpretation, which includes "simultaneously analysis and synthesis, the search for empirical evidence and the formulation of concepts," and other logical operations. In any case, it is necessary to show the validity of the phenomena and processes found in the comparative analysis of their similarities and differences, to reveal their social nature, the immediate causes of their appearance, as well as their social significance. In this case, on the basis of a comparative analysis, useful practical conclusions can be formulated.

Comparative analysis can play a significant role in predicting social processes. The simplest way to forecast is a direct comparison of data on the development of the studied processes in different countries.

It is argued, for example, that the model of American democracy is a model of the future of democracy in developed countries. European countries etc.

Another method of forecasting based on comparative analysis is extrapolation (spreading) of the data obtained for the future "based on a number of hypotheses".

It has been argued (and not without reason) that comparative forecasting has good reliability "especially in cases of short-term forecasts" and "remains one of the most promising approaches in the sociology of the future."

Tasks of this stage:

I. Comparison of identical identification features of objects

II. Identification of matching and different features (in any case, as in
availability, so And in the absence of identity, both matching and

different signs).

Basic research principles:

Comparative research should be complete and detailed.

Matched in detail are not only catchy And the most characteristic, but also all identified in
stages of separate research identification features regardless of their number and
degree of severity (often a comparison of precisely small, inconspicuous features allows
expert to draw the correct conclusion about the identity).

Reliable comparison results are provided by the skillful use of technical means and research methods. In this case, various measuring instruments, magnifiers, comparative microscopes, special lighting devices And other technical means.

4. Evaluation of the identified set of features and formulation of the expert's conclusion.

The identified sets of matching and differing features should be
evaluated primarily in terms of their regularity or randomness.

1) If a set of coinciding features turns out to be natural, significant, then
the expert's conclusion about the identity will bepositive;

2) A regular set of differing features generatesnegativeconclusion.

The identified set of features is evaluated from the point of view of its individuality.
(uniqueness) and sufficiency to justify a categorical (positive or
negative) expert's conclusion.

In order to give a general assessment of complexes of coinciding and differing features, it is necessary to evaluate each identification feature separately, taking into account its the following characteristics:

1. Specificity

2. Relative stability

3. Independence from other features

4. Frequency of occurrence

5. Identification significance.

In cases where the expert comes to a positive conclusion, having made sure that the identified differing features are random and do not have significant significance in resolving the issue of identity, he must substantiate this and explain what causes these differences.

The decisive factor at this stage is the assessment of the entire set of features inherent in the object of identification. The question of what minimum set of features is sufficient in each specific case to substantiate the categorical conclusion of an expert is one of the main issues in the theory of forensic identification.

The correct solution depends on:

1. on the quality of the objects submitted for examination

2. from the completeness and thoroughness of the study

3. from a number of other factors:

S vocational training

S expert qualifications and experience

■S his attention, thoughtfulness, concentration, other subjective qualities

S what objective criteria he is guided by when evaluating signs (mathematical-based quantitative criteria, statistical methods and probability theory).

The only basis for the conclusion about the identity is an individual (unique) set of identification features. The expert's conclusion about identity can be positive or negative, categorical or probable. If the set of features is insufficient for a categorical conclusion, the expert is limited to a probable conclusion.

Only a categorical positive or negative conclusion is of evidentiary value; a probable conclusion can only be used in organizational and operational-search work.

Traceology

Traceology is a branch of criminal technology that studies traces as an external reflection of an object in order to identify and clarify the circumstances associated with the mechanism of their formation.

Trasology tasks.

1. Individual identification of an object by its trace

2. Setting the group membership of objects

3. Special identification - the establishment of the whole in parts

4. Non-identification studies

5. Establishment of some anatomical and physiological features the person who left
track

The main theoretical provisions of the traceological identification of trace-forming objects

1) The fundamental position of traceology is the position of individuality
external structure of objects.

This individuality is manifested in a combination of general and particular features, which is unique and unique to this subject. If general features characterize an object as a whole and can be the same for a whole group of objects, then private (usually small) ones form the so-called. microrelief surfaces of objects. There are particular signs under various circumstances:

S In the process of making an item S In the process of its use (wear, repair)

2) Only those items that have
and are able to maintain external structure, i.e. only solid And semi-solid
bodies (incorrect from the point of view of physics, but it means, for example, oil).

3) An object can be subjected to a trace study if its external structure
steadily.

4) At least two objects.

The object that leaves its mapping is called trace-forming, and the one on which the image remains - trace-receptive.

5) For an image to appear, it is necessary that the objects are in a certain
position relative to each other. Most of the mappings occur when
direct contact of objects, the smaller one - when they are located on some
distance from each other. In the latter case, the mapping is fuzzy and small.
suitable for identification, but has a certain forensic value.

In any trace, not the entire surface of the trace-forming object is displayed, but only the part that has come into contact. This part of the surface of the trace-forming object And the corresponding part of the trace-perceiving surface is called contact surfaces. The very fact of interaction of contact surfaces is called trace contact. concept "trace" in traceology

1. Imprint, imprint

2. Consequence of something

3. Bottom of the foot sole

4. The rest of the features

A trace is a reflection of the surface of one object on another (as a result of interaction,

associated with the crime).

Traces are complexes of signs characteristic of certain types crimes

(for example, traces of hacking)

A trace is the object or substances themselves, the presence of which in a certain place indicates

certain circumstances crimes.

Classification of traces in forensics

1. By the type of energy acting on the trace-perceiving object

1) traces of mechanical impact

2) traces of thermal exposure

3) traces of chemical exposure

2. By localization of the impact zone on the perceived object

1) in the zone of trace contact

2) peripheral

3. According to the degree of deformation of the trace-receiving surface

1) voluminous traces

2) surface marks

traces of layering when a substance is transferred from one object to another traces of delamination when a substance of a trace-perceiving object is transferred to a trace-forming

4. In the direction of movement of the trace-forming object relative to the trace-receiving

1) static

2) dynamic

4. By suitability for identification: 1) suitable 2) unsuitable

General rules detection, fixation and removal of traces

1. Find out the nature of the event in order to find out the localization of traces

2. Study the trace to determine the properties of the trace-receiving surface

3. Collect preliminary information about the object that left a trace

4. It is necessary to orient the track relative to objects on the ground

5. Take a picture of the area

6. Draw a schematic drawing of the position of the track

7. Remove trace

1) together with the object on which it is located

2) make an impression from plaster for volumetric traces, either from silicone paste, or from
wax, paraffin...

3) flat copies from the surface of traces (adhesive tape, photographic paper, fingerprint film)

8. Strictly observe the rules of criminal procedure registration

Handprints

Handprints, in comparison with other traces, are most often and successfully used to solve a crime. Human skin consists of two main layers: the upper - the epidermis, and the lower - the actual skin (dermis).

The upper part of the dermis has the appearance of a relief pattern and is called the papillary layer. This layer consists of papillae arranged in rows. The epidermis follows the relief of the dermis, forming papillary lines.

papillary lines- these are linear elevations that form a certain pattern. Forensic value have papillary lines on the nail phalanges of human hands, which are used not only in trace studies, but also for the purposes of criminal registration.

Properties of papillary patterns:

1. Individuality (probability of coincidence 1/64 * 10 9)

2. Stability (do not change during life)

3. Unaltered recoverability

Classification of papillary patterns.

In the very general view comparison as a side and process inherent in any cognition can be defined as a reflection in human consciousness of the real relations of identity, similarity and difference that exist between objects and phenomena of the surrounding world.

The process of forensic identification, which aims to establish the identity or difference of the compared objects, is characterized by a particularly great importance of the comparative method, which here acquires the character of not only general scientific, but also the most important special method research penetrating all stages of identification. In this case, a comparative study can pursue various goals. It can be carried out in order to establish the stage of development of this or that process, the degree of changes that have occurred in this or that object, the presence or intensity of the manifestation of this or that property, and, finally, with the more general task of establishing the laws of development of the studied phenomena.

Due to the particular relevance of the comparison method for the identification methodology, it is necessary to consider the issue of comparison objects and comparison tasks in relation to each stage of identification.

The objects of comparison in the identification process can be both integral material objects and complexes and their reflections in the setting of the event under investigation, as well as individual identification features identified in the analysis process, the properties displayed by them, as well as sets of interrelated properties and features that characterize the genus, species or another limited group of objects, a set of differing and coinciding properties, various states of an identifiable object in the identification period, and any set of checked objects selected in the process of individualization.

The goals and specific methodology for the comparative study of these objects differ depending on the stage and cycle of the identification study.

In the most general form, objects and tasks of comparison at various stages of identification can be represented as follows.

At the stage of preliminary research, the objects of comparison are mainly complete systems: object being checked, identified, identifying the object. The task of comparison is to model the mechanisms of interaction, the identification field, the desired object, the investigative and expert situation. In order to develop and verify expert versions and plan a study, a preliminary selective cyclic analysis and comparison of identification features and properties in their various combinations can be carried out.

At the stage of analytical research, the objects of comparison are mainly the features of the compared objects. At the same time, the task of comparison is to establish the properties of the compared objects by studying the various manifestations of features, the display mechanism, and the patterns of their distribution. Since the establishment of a property requires the study of its various manifestations, at the stage of analytical research, a comparison of various manifestations of a property can and should be made, a study of variations in characteristics. At the same time, however, the question of identity can be resolved only on the basis of a comparison of the properties of objects, because the coincidence or difference of features is by no means equivalent to the coincidence or difference of properties and cannot provide a basis for constructing a judgment about identity. The peculiarity of the comparison of signs at the analytical stage is that it is carried out at the level of figurative-sensory perception, since the signs themselves represent sensory-perceived quanta of identification information. “The act of comparison,” E. F. Burinsky writes about this level, “consists in imposing one visual impression on another, in combining impressions not in the sphere of memory images, but on the terminal (peripheral) part of the visual organ” [see. 35, p. 136].

On the basis of what has been said, the essence of the stage of comparative research, the object, tasks and methods of comparison at this stage of identification should be clarified.

The essence, purpose and main content of the comparative stage of identification is the comparison of identifiable objects by their properties. The coincidences and differences revealed as a result of such a comparison provide grounds for a judgment about identity.

Speaking about the essence and content of the stage of comparative research, it must be emphasized that it is carried out on a qualitatively more high level logical knowledge. If comparison operations at the stage of preliminary research were carried out at the level of direct subject-sensory knowledge, then at the stage of comparative research these operations are carried out at the level of mediated logical knowledge. In this case, the objects of comparison are not sensory perceptions, but logically processed images, representations, models abstracted from sensory perception. The comparison procedure itself is carried out using a system of specially developed methods, which should be the subject of independent consideration.

Of particular interest is the question of the relationship between the stages of analytical and comparative research. The ratio of these stages of research is interpreted in different ways. Meanwhile, the question of the relationship between these stages is an important problem in the practice of forensic research.

The decisive factor in resolving this issue is the inseparable connection and mutual dependence of separate and comparative studies. Comparison is always limited to the properties established in the course of a separate study. In turn, the tasks, objects and the very direction of separate research are entirely determined by the purpose of this stage: the preparation of a comparative study.

We saw above that the choice of material when studying the properties of the object being checked (the object or its mapping) is determined by the specifics of the comparative study of mappings.

In isolation from comparison, it is impossible to determine the direction of separate research. Properties can be studied both in terms of their individuality (frequency of occurrence) and in terms of stability.

If a match is established during the comparison, a separate study should be carried out along the line of studying the occurrence of the matching property. Without this, it is impossible to assess the individuality of the detected matches. If differences are established, then their evaluation and explanation require a study of the variability of the features and properties of the compared objects.

The organic connection between separate research and comparison is thus obvious.

How are these stages of research carried out?

At the beginning of a separate study, a separate study of each mapping is carried out. The task of this kind of study is to establish the mechanism for the formation of the display and changes in the display before the start of the study. The results of such a study can have a decisive influence on the determination of the methodology for a comparative study, for example, when establishing the fact that the manuscript was executed with the left hand or the aging of the car enamel under study.

After that, they begin to solve the main task of a separate study - to establish the properties of objects by analyzing identification features. A practically separate analysis of identification features continuously alternates with a comparison of properties.

A preliminary analysis and comparison is followed by a thorough study of the relevant properties of each of the compared objects. The set properties are compared. At the end of a comparative study of one property, they proceed to a separate study of another, and so on.

In cases where groups of interrelated properties are found during the analysis, for example, skill features, the relationship between the tempo of writing, coherence and acceleration of handwriting, which manifest themselves when making ovals, semi-ovals, subscript strokes, the indicated groups of properties are studied and then compared.

The strategy of individualization, as well as the study of the relationship between individual properties and their complexes, are most consistently implemented by moving from a comparison of general (integral) to a comparison of particular (local) properties.

The mechanical distinction between the stages of separate research and comparison seems to be methodologically unreasonable. Proponents of such a division believe that at first, regardless of the comparison, a separate analysis of each object should be carried out. Only after the complete completion of such an analysis, i.e. after studying all the properties of each of the objects under study, you can proceed to comparison. This scheme of separate and comparative research does not take into account the complete conditionality of analysis by the objectives of comparative research.

First, not every case of a separate study requires the analysis of all identification features and properties of the objects under study. If a difference in generic properties is established during a comparative study, there is no need to detail the properties of the compared objects. So, establishing a distinction between the type of dye, type papillary pattern when comparing handprints, the number of rifling in the bore firearms when comparing bullets, font size when comparing typewritten texts, and the like, by itself is sufficient for a negative conclusion.

Meanwhile, the separation of comparison from a separate study would lead to the need to carry out this work, which is significant in terms of volume and complexity, in all cases.

Secondly, if a separate study is separated from a comparison, the same properties would have to be analyzed twice: first separately from the comparison, and then in parallel with the comparison. The ensuing increase in the volume of research seems to be methodologically unjustified.

At the same time, in individual expert situations and particular expert methods, a separate analysis, separated from a comparative study, turns out to be methodologically expedient.

This applies primarily to multi-object examinations, when a large number of objects to be checked are submitted for examination. In these cases, a thorough preliminary analysis of the display of the desired object is justified in order to clarify its generic and specific properties that can be used to exclude the bulk of the objects being checked, as well as to highlight the catchy features of the desired object for its preliminary identification.

When identifying weapons by fired bullets, for example, it is recommended to isolate the catchy stable features of each barrel by experimental bullets oriented in a certain way in the chamber, and then proceed to the analysis of the studied bullet,

on which such features can be less pronounced, damaged in the barrier.

Due to the inseparable connection between the stage of analysis and comparison, it seems appropriate to consider the main guidelines concerning the analytical comparison of features, i.e. preliminary comparison of sensory-perceived features of objects.

Comparative study.

A comparative study is the most complex and responsible stage of the examination.

For static traces, methods are used juxtapositions and overlays photographs, transparencies, profilograms (after their mathematical processing).

To compare the dynamic traces of hacking tools from the scene with the traces obtained experimentally, we use photographic and optical alignment. Small traces with a fine-structured relief (microtraces) are compared using microscopes of the MSC type, and large footprints cutting with a knife, cutting, etc. - according to their photographs. When comparing microscopically and photographing traces, it is important to achieve the same conditions for their illumination (direction, angle of incidence of light, degree of brightness). In addition, when photographing traces separately, the same scale is strictly maintained, and when printing photographs, their same magnification is maintained. Comparison carried out using a microscope makes it possible, by means of mutual movement of traces, to find such a position in which the traces and gaps between them are combined, which indicates their formation by the same elements of the microrelief of the contact surface of the tool. The resulting alignment is fixed on film.

Comparison of tracks by photographs is carried out in the following way: a photograph of the experimental track is cut along a line perpendicular to the tracks and superimposed on a photograph of the track taken from the scene. Then the edge formed by the cut line is moved along and across the trace image in the lower image to the position of the trace alignment. This provision is fixed by gluing photographs or in another way. For greater clarity of alignment, the photographic image of the experimental track can be cut along a broken line or divided into several parts, which are then fixed in various zones trace shown in the bottom photo.

In the process of a comparative study, the expert most often compares either the traces under study with the experimental ones, or a cast from the trace under study with the corresponding section of the tool being tested. In this case, it is necessary to take into account the position of the objects of comparison: it is impossible to compare traces in a negative position with a positive position of the sample. Even before the start of a comparative study, the objects under study must be given the same characteristic parameters with the help of experiments. equal condition of a proper comparative study are: the same illumination in terms of intensity and direction of objects, their same magnification in photographs.

First, the general features are compared, and then the particular ones. Comparison of private signs should be carried out according to their presence, location, size and relative position. After identifying the same and different features, the expert conducts their thorough and objective assessment.

5. Conclusion shaping begins with the analysis and evaluation of different features (when forming a categorical positive conclusion). The reason for the differences, their possible time of occurrence, materiality and significance for the formation of the final conclusion are determined. You need to make sure that the existing differences are not the result of:

different conditions trace formation;

Obtaining a low-quality cast (copy);

Changes in the relief of the track during its transportation and storage;

Changes in the relief of the trace-forming section of the tool (tool) during its operation.

If the differences are insignificant and explainable, then they proceed to the assessment of matching signs. If the established coincidences are significant, and the set of coinciding features (namely, the set, and not the features in themselves separately) is sufficient in terms of its qualitative and quantitative characteristics to justify the identity, a categorical positive conclusion is made. The basis of the conclusion is the conducted research and the professional experience of the expert (his inner conviction).

In addition to the categorical conclusion, there is also a probable conclusion. In the regulatory documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia (Order No. 7 of January 11, 2009), two possible formulations of the probable conclusion are given: positive and negative. A probable positive conclusion should be formulated by an expert only with a fairly significant degree of probability of identity. Accordingly, negative high degree the likelihood of none. With a slight difference in the probabilities of opposite events (the presence and absence of identity), the expert must draw the only correct conclusion - the impossibility of resolving the issue on the merits (NIP).

The conclusion about the identity can be formulated in a categorical form, when the expert has convincingly shown the coincidence of a set of features that individualize the tool, or in a hypothetical one, if there is no complete similarity. In both cases, the essential condition must be the absence of significant differences. Match only common features allows you to establish only group affiliation, i.e. attribute the object that formed the trace to the same type of tool as the one presented for research.

Comparison method in system analysis it is used to compare the elements of the management system, their characteristics, for their subsequent classification, ordering and evaluation. On the basis of comparison, applied simultaneously with other methods, regularities, relationships of economic phenomena are established, the degree of development, the level of efficiency in the use of various resources are determined. The comparison method is based on a universal logical method of cognition, through which the equality or difference of the studied (investigated) objects, phenomena is established by a certain characteristic feature by comparing them. This method involves comparison with some measure.

The comparison method is feasible for quantities that can be reproduced using measures. As a rule, this method provides a higher measurement accuracy than the method of direct assessment, since the error of the result is mainly determined by the insignificant error of the measure, the remaining errors can usually be made small.

From the general definition of the comparison method, it follows that for its application in the field of systems analysis in management, certain requirements must be met.

1) Comparable values ​​should be selected for comparison. Comparability should be comprehensive and include the unity of volume, cost, quality, structural indicators. For example, if a comparison is made of the work of an industry over time or across a territory, it must be homogeneous - mining or manufacturing, chemical or metallurgical, etc.

2) The objects of comparison must be the same not only in name, but also in the content of the main components. In practice, this means comparability of production conditions.

3) It is necessary to comply with the requirements of the unity of the time periods for which the objects are compared, i.e., to determine the uniform calendar terms for which they are compared. For example, you can not compare the volume of manufactured products per month and per week.

4) Differences in the methodology for calculating indicators for evaluating compared objects should be eliminated.

Comparability of data is necessary not only in the formation of generalizing indicators, but also in the use of those obtained from the analysis of the work of an enterprise and industries. Individual current indicators are compared with planned ones, planned and current ones are compared with indicators of previous periods (month, quarter, year), between divisions of the enterprise and individual firms, enterprises of the association. Plan, previous period, similar object - the main types of comparison, criteria for assessing achievements or possible losses.

In general, within the framework of system analysis in management, there are several main forms of comparison: with a plan; with past periods; with the best performance; with average data.

This method allows, depending on the purpose of the study, to determine the differences or commonality of the object under study with an analogue, i.e. with a standard, a competitor's sample, the best world sample, the best sample of the country, an average sample, a standard, a regulation, a norm, etc. .

The methodology for applying the comparison method in systems analysis in management must include certain conditions. For comparison, only those objects are selected between which there is an objective commonality, and only those properties of the object that are essential and most important for achieving the goals of studying the property of the object. But in the presence of certain goals, objects of different purposes may be subject to comparison. Such a comparison can be carried out directly between them or indirectly - by comparing them with some third object (for example, a standard). In the first case, one usually gets qualitative results(for example: more, less; higher; lower), When compared with the standard, they get quantitative characteristics. Such a comparison can be called a measurement.