Abstract

Actually in the processes the DNA tests assumes a dogmatic power. But, doing so, can happens that a “static forensic element” be overestimated. This involves a set of clues that the judge will have available to form his own conviction. However, judges need scientific evidence (cross-examinated) and repeatable systems for their evaluations, thus overcoming the so-called “processo indiziario”, or trial based just on clues. To overcome this and to increase the impact of science in the process, is proposed the theory of “Dynamic Criminology” where Judges and forensic scientists are co-authors. Dynamic criminology requires the strict answer to the questions: “Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando and quantum”. That literally means “who, what, where, by what means, why, how, when and how much Judges need to have scientific information about the person acting (quis); the action it does (quid); the place where it is executed (ubi); the means he uses to execute it (quibus auxiliis); the intended purpose (cur); the way it does (quomodo); the time it takes you and where it does it (when). For the purposes of efficient justice, the parameters indicated with exhaustive scientific answers must be used. This connects the theory of “Dynamic Criminology” to a process of strong scientific evidence, cross-examinated together, whose demonstration is based on repeatability criteria. The basic idea of the new theory is to develop a “rewind” of what happens through the observation of the spatial disposition and the quantity of the biological evidences (in singulo first and in toto then). DNA tests give to the judges just the possibility to answer to the question “who”; in order to get answer to the other question is fundamental a deep focus on the biological evidences (area, size, number, quantity, quality, relative distance, etc.)