Evidence In Criminal Procedure Research Articles

On the Issue of the Concept of “Digital Information” in relation to Criminal Proceedings

The intensive and massive introduction of digital technologies has revealed the “lag” of law from dynamically developing public relations. To date, a unified position on the concept of information obtained using digital technologies has not been developed and legislatively fixed. The article con[1]siders the problem of the lack of a uniform understanding of the concept of information obtained using digital technologies in criminal proceedings. The author cites various positions of scientists on the issue under study, as well as the provisions of normative legal acts containing legal definitions of the analyzed term. An author’s version of the term is proposed to denote information introduced into criminal procedural evidence through digital media. The lack of a legal definition of digital information and a common understanding of its essence when used in proving a criminal case makes it much more difficult to achieve the goals of criminal proceedings. The legislative definition of the concept of “digital information” will contribute to the correct, or rather, the only possible understanding of its meaning in the context of this legal context.

Features of the process of evidence in criminal procedure of the United States of America

Recent years have been marked by a great growth of comparative legal research in various branches of legal science, which are gaining a growing number of supporters. The given process makes it possible to show the originality of certain branches of law, their institutions, norms in different legal systems, to compare the data of a specific branch of law with similar branches in other legal systems, and to reveal national differences. The practical significance of the given activity lies in the study and generalization of both positive and negative legal experience of foreign countries. In today’s transparent world, with the growing importance of the international component in the fight against crime, a legal expert needs knowledge that goes beyond the national legal field for a reason, with the purpose of its proper use in the process of international cooperation in criminal proceedings between states in particular.
 Nowadays there is the process of convergence of various criminal procedural systems of the world. And in this regard, the Anglo-American system of the criminal procedure, the United States of America (hereinafter the USA) in particular, is quite interesting. The given system has distinctive features that are different from the national system and deserve attention. They are the sources of the US criminal procedural law which include judicial precedent, regulations and legal doctrine. The peculiarity of the given system is that it is based on adversarial proceedings and justice, it generates phenomena of the criminal procedure, namely the plea agreement, the jury trial, the concept of restorative justice, the discretionary powers of persons conducting criminal proceedings, etc. Yet another characteristic feature of the Anglo-American system of the US criminal procedure is the specifics of the implementation of evidentiary criminal procedural activity.
 The focus of the given article is on the study of the specificity of evidentiary activity, such as questions related to: the concept, classification, sources and properties of evidence in the criminal procedure of the United States of America, the peculiarities of the process of evidence at certain stages of the procedure, the legal position of certain subjects of evidence. The materials of the article are of both theoretical and practical value. They can be used for further scientific research on the peculiarities of national criminal procedural evidence, as well as for the proper understanding and implementation of its law enforcement criminal procedural activity.

Are the Lawyer, the Prosecutor and the Court Subjects of Evidence or Participants in Evidence in Criminal Proceedings?

Relevance. The article examines the issues of participation of a lawyer, prosecutor and court in proving in modern conditions of adversarial proceedings, within the framework of ongoing legal reform. The author comes to the conclusion that the subjects of proof in modern Russian criminal proceedings are only the investigator and the investigator, since they bear the burden of proof. At the same time, the lawyer, the prosecutor and the court are participants in the evidence, whose main task is to examine the evidence collected by the parties. At the same time, the court, being an impartial participant in criminal proceedings, should not take the initiative in collecting evidence and substantiating the accusatory thesis put forward and formulated by the prosecution at the pre-trial stage.Objectives: to continue the consideration of issues arising at the present stage in the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings, and to propose a new gradation of subjects of evidence and participants in evidence, in continuation of the ongoing scientific discussion on the modern development of the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings.The purpose of the study is to identify and discuss problematic issues of the implementation of the mechanism of criminal evidence and propose a new list of subjects of evidence and participants in evidence in criminal proceedings.Methodology. The methodological basis of the research was the universal dialectical method of cognition of socio-legal phenomena, general scientific research methods (analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, system-structural and others). In addition, private scientific methods of cognition were used - logical–formal and system analysis.The results of the study are distinguished by both theoretical and applied nature with elements of scientific novelty. The author considers the emerging difficulties associated with the practical implementation of the provisions of the issues of evidence in criminal proceedings, proposes a new list of subjects of evidence and participants in evidence, as well as a possible change in the established traditional scientific theory of evidence.Conclusions. The discussion of the identified problems will allow drawing the attention of the scientific community and the legislator to the development of solutions to eliminate the identified gaps in criminal procedural evidence, a more detailed definition of the role of the court, prosecutor and lawyer in criminal proceedings. At the same time, it is suggested that the use of the approach proposed by the author, including the introduction of relevant provisions in criminal procedure legislation, will correct the imbalance in the theory of evidence that exists at the present stage.

监察证据在刑事诉讼中的衔接与排除

监察证据在刑事诉讼中的衔接与排除

Paratus evidences in the criminal proceedings

The article summarizes the results of the author’s scientific research on the collection of evidence as one of the stages of criminal procedural proof. The author’s position is substantiated, suggesting partial disagreement with the well-known doctrinal postulate on the possibility of collecting evidence only through their formation, that is, through the production of investigative or other procedural actions provided for by the criminal procedure law. Attention is drawn to the impossibility of using mechanisms for generating evidence in relation to affixed, claimed or seized items and documents to be introduced into the criminal process as ready-made information products: material evidence, other documents, expert opinions, as well as the results of operational -search and administrative activities. It is proposed to call such evidence paratus and recognize them as full-fledged, having due legal force and suitable for use as intended means of proof by attaching them to the materials of criminal proceedings. At the same time, it is proposed to supplement the classification of criminal procedural evidence, providing for another reason that implies differentiation depending on the method of collection - to subdivide the evidence into formed and paratus.

Development of the Institute of Criminal Procedural Evidence

The fulfillment of the key function of criminal proceedings – the resolution of the case on the merits – is impossible without criminal procedural knowledge of all the circumstances of the crime committed. The foundation of this activity is criminal procedure and evidence, which is a very complex, multi-level system. The foundation of such a system is evidence. At present, there are serious contradictions in how the sources of evidentiary information, evidence of practice, and proof are interrelated. Collection, verification, evaluation and presentation of evidence, both in theory and in practice, often give rise to non-legal, unfair and unjustified criminal procedural decisions in pre-trial proceedings and in court. Despite the plethora if views on the theory of evidence, the lack of consistency in investigative and judicial practice with regard to the evidence suggests that at present there are a large number of unresolved problems in this field as well as on the legislative level. In this regard, it seems necessary to conduct a study on the historical and legal aspects of the institute of evidence and proof in domestic legislation in order to identify the prerequisites of its origin and patterns of development. The conducted research has theoretical and practical significance. First, it contributes to the development of the topic under discussion. Second, the identified regularities allow us to use them to develop recommendations on improving the current criminal procedural legislation. The author concludes that with lapse of time, the concept of evidence has changed: from a means of substantiating guilt in “evidence-argument” terms to an element of the system of evidence including source, content and procedural form. In addition, the criteria for analyzing the development of evidence law have been formulated.

Features of the application of temporary access to things and documents in the process of criminal procedural evidence

In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Procedure Code), the prosecution, as a subject of evidence in a judicial investigation, obtains evidence through conducting investigative (detective) actions and covert investigative (detective) actions, requesting and receiving things, documents, information, experts' conclusions, audit conclusions and inspection reports from public authorities, local self-government bodies, enterprises, institutions and organizations, officials and individuals, as well as carrying out other procedural actions provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Other procedural actions that can be ways of obtaining evidentiary information include: filing motions, complaints, statements, objections, as well as separate measures to ensure criminal proceedings, in particular, temporary access to things and documents, temporary seizure of property, seizure of property. In this article, I would like to consider in more detail the specific features of such a procedural action as temporary access to things and documents, provided for in Chapter 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A system analysis of the provisions of the given chapter, other norms of the current the Criminal Procedure Code, as well as the application thereof, suggest a conclusion that there is an imperfection in the legislative regulation on the issue of applying temporary access to things and documents in the process of criminal procedural evidence.
 The publication comments on a number of norms of the Criminal Procedure Code which establish the specifics of the application of the given measure of ensuring criminal proceedings in the process of criminal procedural evidence during the pre-trial investigation, and proposes approaches to eliminating their shortcomings, based on the analysis of the specifics of the normative regulation of temporary access to things and documents. This issue is evaluated differently by both practitioners and scientists and is actively used during criminal proceedings, which is confirmed by court statistics. Theoretical and practical aspects of the given issue are considered. The article claims that despite the widespread use of the given institute, there is a significant amount of misunderstandings and contradictions between theory and practice. The paper contains critical remarks regarding the procedure of normative regulation and the use of temporary access to things and documents in the process of criminal procedural evidence. The materials of the article are both of theoretical and practical value. They can be used for further scientific research on the specifics of the application of measures to ensure criminal proceedings in the process of criminal procedural evidence, as well as for the proper understanding and implementation of law-enforcement criminal procedural activities.

Doctrinal Approaches to Understanding Evidence in a Criminal Case: History and Modernity

The paper discusses the main stages of the development of the theory of criminal procedural evidence. The author analyzes and systematizes various approaches of procedural researchers, on the basis of which the basic doctrinal approaches to understanding evidence are distinguished: 1) formal-logical; 2) factual; 3) dualistic; 4) liminal (transitional); 5) synthetic; 6) cybernetic (informational); 6) pragmatic (Anglo-Saxon). The paper defines the causes of their emergence, evaluates their advantages and disadvantages.It is noted that the diversity of approaches to understanding evidence can be explained by the predetermination of various academic approachers and related legislative provisions, initially different ideological ideas and trends that play a priority role in certain periods of society development. At the same time, it is argued that these approaches do not exclude each other, but reveal different elements of criminal procedural evidence as a comprehended, multidimensional complex of cognitive-certifying techniques and argumentative-logical operations: the cybernetic approach as accumulation of useful information; pragmatic approach as its proper certification; formal-logical and factual approaches as justification of law enforcement decisions and positions of the parties, etc.In this regard, the conclusion is formulated about the optimality and the greatest acceptability for the use of another, so-called non-synthetic approach. Evidence is proposed to be understood as information assets provided for by law and predetermined by substantive or ideal traces-displays, subject to accumulation as legally suitable (permissible) information products, and then used as argumentative resources, which support the investigator, inquiror, court in establishing circumstances relevant to the criminal case and substantiating law enforcement decisions., and to the parties in attempts to influence the nature and content of these decisions.

Similar Fact Evidence in Criminal Procedure

Similar Fact Evidence in Criminal Procedure

The judicial assessment of expert evidence in Polish criminal procedure

In the article, the author addresses the issue of the judicial assessment of expert evidence in Polish criminal proceedings. Over the years, the reliance of the criminal justice system on experts increased dramatically. Nowadays, expert evidence plays a pivotal role in court disputes, directly influencing the outcome of judicial proceedings. Experience, however, shows that erroneous expert reports and flawed testimonies may lead to erroneous judicial decisions inflicting irreparable personal and social harm. Unfortunately, the existing model of forensic expert services in Poland is not prone to manipulations and in its current shape cannot guarantee the reliability of expert evidence. Several procedural and structural solutions have been proposed to enhance the credibility of court-appointed experts over recent years. The author examines their advantages and limitations to identify the ones that are realistic and workable.

Features of the application of measures ensuring criminal proceedings in the process of crim-inal procedural evidence

Based on the analysis of the features of the normative regulation of the application of measures ensuring criminal proceedings, the publication comments on a number of norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which fix the features of the application of measures ensuring criminal proceedings in the process of criminal procedural evidence during preliminary investigation, as well as proposed approaches to eliminating their shortcomings. The emergence of criminal proceedings on the basis of agreements is a novelty both for the criminal procedural law of Ukraine and for the procedural activities of the pre-trial investigation bodies and the judicial system.
 This institution is comparable new to criminal litigation, its mechanism has not been worked out by case law and has not been sufficiently explored by academic doctrine yet. Due to this, the misunderstanding of the nature, content, meaning, and consequences of reaching an agreement on reconciliation or an admission of guilt in the case of committing crimes among the participants of the criminal proceedings still exists; there are also cases of misapplication of the law by investigators, prosecutors and judges in such proceedings that lead to appeals against court sentences, create unnecessary red tape and do not have a positive effect on victims, defendants and the justice system in general.
 The main approach to the issue's review in the given article is to carry out a critical analysis of the norms of the current legislation governing the features of criminal procedural proof during proceedings on the basis of agreements. There are critical remarks regarding the order of the normative regulation and the use of certain measures ensuring criminal proceedings as methods of collecting and verifying evidence. The materials of the article represent both theoretical and practical value. They can be used for further scientific research on the features of the application of measures ensuring criminal proceedings in the process of criminal procedural evidence, as well as for the proper understanding and implementation of law-enforcement criminal procedural activities.

Изъятие цифровых следов из сети Интернет и использование их в доказывании: уголовно-процессуальные аспекты

Currently, the amount of information that Internet users post on it and exchange with each other is increasing. Under certain conditions, this information, can become forensically significant and can be used as evidence in the future. The issue of seizure and procedural recording of such information is not regulated by current legislation, which makes it difficult to use this information as evidence. The purpose of the study is to identify specific features of digital information, special aspects of the process of proof using digital information and digital footprints within the framework of the current criminal procedure legislation. The author considers the information obtained from social networks in the context of digital footprints and digital evidence in criminal procedure. The signs of digital (electronic) evidence have been systematized. The author carried out an analysis of the provisions of Art. 74 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, as well as of modern scientific approaches to understanding the system and form of evidence in criminal procedure. Having studied law enforcement practice, the author concluded that the existing legal regulation of the use of digital (electronic) evidence in criminal procedure is not effective enough. The analysis of legislation and law enforcement practice regarding the use of digital footprints in evidence allowed formulating several proposals to improve the norms of criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation. In particular, the author proposed to enshrine the definition of digital document in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, expand the list of investigative actions, and specify a separate investigative action aimed at detecting digital footprints and recording digital information.

ВПЛИВ ПРАВОВИХ ПРЕЗУМПЦІЙ НА ОБСТАВИНИ, ЯКІ ВХОДЯТЬ ДО ПРЕДМЕТА ДОКАЗУВАННЯ... У КРИМІНАЛЬНОМУ ПРОВАДЖЕННІ

The article is devoted to the study of some problematic issues related to the influence of legal presumptions on circumstances that are part of the subject of evidence in criminal proceedings. The author analyzed the legislative, theoretical and practical basis related to the issue of the influence of legal presumptions on the subject of proof, and in particular on the circumstances that are part of it. The purpose of this article is to consider and study the issue of the influence of legal presumptions on the subject of evidence in criminal proceedings, as well as to substantiate the importance of legal presumptions for the criminal process in general and for the subject of evidence in particular. In his research, the author focuses on the lack of a single approach to understanding the legal nature of presumption in the criminal process, however, based on the analysis, he generalizes that modern legal science singles out and uses the term “legal presumption”, which is a legal aspect of the general concept of assumption. Draws attention to the need to establish the essence and limits of the influence of presumptions on criminal procedural evidence, otherwise it will contribute to the emergence of problems in the practice of law enforcement. During the research, the author used general scientific research methods (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, abstraction, generalization), the dialectical method of learning the phenomena of objective reality) and special legal methods – formal-logical, comparative-legal, structural-organizational. The author established that legal presumptions are of great importance for criminal proceedings, namely, they influence the formation of the criminal process as a whole, its individual institutions, as well as individual stages of the process; affect the process of proof, since legal presumptions can have an impact on the subject and limits of proof, participate in the distribution of the burden of proof. Also, on the basis of the conducted thorough analysis, the author’s definition of legal presumption is proposed – as a means that is binding due to its direct or indirect enshrining in legislation and on the basis of probable assumptions – contributes to the establishment without evidence of some legal facts, events, phenomena, social relations, which may lead to certain legal consequences and affect legal relations. In addition, conclusions were made about the need to supplement the current Code of Criminal Procedure with the presumption of mental health (sanity) and the presumption of knowledge of criminal legislation

Проблемы использования в доказывании по уголовному делу результатов оперативного эксперимента и проверочной закупки

The study presents the concept of the special evidentiary value of the results of operational experiments and test purchases. This is due to the fact that these actions reflect a criminal event carried out under the control of law enforcement authorities. To dispel doubts about the admissibility of documented results of such operational measures, a legal standard for their conduct is developed. Unlike sectoral developments regarding such a legal standard, an interdisciplinary legal standard is proposed. It includes criminal procedural norms, norms of criminal investigative law, as well as judicial precedents. Compliance with this standard should guarantee the admissibility of using the results of these operational measures in criminal procedural evidence. Simultaneously, the rights of individuals implicated in the commission of a crime must be ensured. The material-legal and procedural components of the standard for the lawful conduct of operational experiments and test purchases are analyzed. A material-legal criterion for distinguishing lawful operational experiments and test purchases from entrapment is formulated. Criteria for the procedural component of this legal standard are provided. In conclusion, a synthesis of all analyzed components is made in the form of a comprehensive standard for the activities of law enforcement authorities, preliminary investigation bodies, and prosecutors in forming evidence of charges from the results of operational experiments and test purchases. The conclusions drawn can be used in the field of operational and investigative activities and criminal procedural evidence to eliminate legal uncertainty and increase the effectiveness of prosecuting individuals who have committed serious, covert crimes. Additionally, it may reduce the professional risk for operational personnel authorized to conduct these activities.

ЦИФРОВІ ДОКАЗИ У КРИМІНАЛЬНОМУ ПРОЦЕСІ: ВИДОВА ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКА

The given article studies the development of the system of procedural evidence types with the aim to distinguish the criteria for its typological classification, as well as to define its place in the system of criminal procedural evidence, taking into account a specific artificial intangible nature of digital evidence data. The author of the article states that the development of information society supposes a new model of social relations, communication and respectively new approaches to solving important issues, including those within the criminal proceedings field. Information technologies are evolving very fast so are the methods of use of digital technical means with malicious purposes, which results in a steady increase of crimes committed in cyber space. But, the question of digital data use as the evidence is still poorly studied and not regulated enough in criminal and procedural legislation of Ukraine. In particular, the place of digital evidence in the system of procedural evidence sources has not been defined yet. The author of the article analyses the status of scientific research related to the classification of procedural evidence types, its evolution, and raises the question of establishing a separate type of criminal procedural evidence for digital information which has a probative value. The analysis of criminal and procedural legislation and evaluable scientific resources shows, that the existing concept of classification requires improvement bearing in mind a specific nature of digital evidence. There also have been defined the criteria for dividing procedural evidence into certain types with further grounding the necessity to classify digital evidence as a separate type due to its specific nature. It has been substantiated that it is inaccurate to refer digital evidence to both physical evidence and documents in criminal procedure. The article convincingly proves that digital data in the form of files and machine media is a separate type of evidence, and, correspondently, it is advisable to amend p.2 of Article 84 of CPC of Ukraine.

К. Маркс о собственной форме и содержании в правоотношениях

The article shows the importance of legal relations, based on the work of K. Marx “Debate on the order to steal a forest”, in which he clearly raised the question of the independence of legal relations, whether it be criminal law, or criminal procedure, or any other relationship... Any legal relationship has only its own form and content, inextricably dialectically interconnected. This is the true scientific nature of legal relations. Therefore, one legal relationship cannot be made the content of other relationships. For example, it is impossible to squeeze the Chinese procedural procedure into the French procedure without distorting its true essence, while Marx sharply criticizes the position of the Landtag deputies who tried to make the selfish private interest of forest owners the property of state criminal law and criminal procedural relations. According to Marx: “a form is devoid of any value if it is not a form of content”. Hence, the criminal process cannot be considered as a form of criminal law, since then the content of the criminal procedural legal relationship changes, since inevitably then the accused will be identified with the guilty (criminal), and the measures of procedural coercion will be identified with the measures of criminal punishment, and the presumption of innocence will be replaced on the presumption of guilt. In the same way, it is impossible to make operational-search relations the content of criminal-procedural relations and thereby erase the differences between criminal-procedural evidence and operational-search data. At the same time, the very institution of interaction between the investigator and the body of inquiry, carrying out operational-search activities, is important.

Concerning certain features of evidence assessment in different legal systems and in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights

The article examines certain features of the assessment of evidence in criminal proceedings in various legal systems and in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Different approaches to understanding the essence of the concept of "standard of criminal procedural evidence" are analyzed and the author's definition of it is proposed. It is illustrated that the rules of evaluation of evidence, which take place in Anglo-Saxon and continental jurisdictions, differ significantly. In the countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal family, objective criteria for the evaluation of evidence have been established - standards of evidence based on the idea of ​​assessing the probability of certain variants of the actual picture of the proceedings and have a guiding nature. Continental European countries, on the other hand, apply a subjective criterion for evaluating evidence, using the category of "internal conviction", which is based on the personal conviction of the subject of evidence in the truth of a certain fact. It was concluded that the effectiveness of evidentiary activity can be increased by introducing objective elements into the assessment rules, which leads to the development and normalization of standards of criminal procedural evidence in the domestic criminal process. This will contribute to the development of the same approach to making procedural decisions and the implementation of procedural actions by all subjects of evidence in various criminal proceedings and stages, who will understand the level of requirements for their adoption or conduct.
 When analyzing the practice of the European Court, it was determined that the rules for applying the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" by the European Court and national courts (in particular, the Anglo-Saxon legal system) differ. In this regard, the opinion was expressed that domestic criminal proceedings should be guided by the practice of implementing this standard in the legal systems of common law countries.

Substantiation of the risk of absconding when applying pre-trial restriction measures related to the limitation of a constitutional person’s right

The article examines the features of the prosecutor's substantiation of the risk of absconding from the pre-trial investigation bodies and / or the court when applying measures related to the restriction of the constitutional rights of a person. Statistical data show a trend towards an increase in the number of cases of refusals by investigating judges to approve petitions of prosecutors as subjects of proving on the use of means of criminal procedural evidence, in particular, security measures, which indicates, among other things, the low level of validity of the petitions filed. Thus, in 2018, investigating judges refused to satisfy 5,970 petitions out of a total of 37,193 petitions for the application of precautionary measures (16.5%); in 2019 - 5,733 out of 34,780 (about 16.4%); in 2020 - 5,693 out of 31,547 (18.1%); for 2021 - 5,277 out of 30,408 (17.3%); for January-March 2022 - 799 out of 4,526 (17.6%). This is due to the fact that the problems of the prosecutor's exercise of his powers in proving in the pre-trial investigation, in particular in substantiating the presence of the risk of absconding, have not yet been subjected to a comprehensive theoretical study. The study of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights allows us to reveal the essence of the risk of absconding as a basis for the application of measures related to the restriction of the constitutional rights of a person, as well as to find out what factors should be taken into account by the prosecutor when substantiating the risk of absconding.

Using the possibilities of criminal analysis during the pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings

The article identifies theoretical and applied problems of the use of criminal analysis in the investigation of criminal offenses. The main characteristics, components and types of criminal analysis are highlighted. The positive experience of the American model of criminal analysis is studied. The peculiarities of the use of criminal analysis in the territory of Ukraine are clarified, the prospects of legalization of its results are determined, as well as active implementation at the national level to enhance the fight against organized criminal activity. With the help of general philosophical and special scientific methods, the prospects of analytical support of criminal proceedings during pre-trial investigation are examined, proposals are made on active implementation and effective use of methods and results of criminal analysis in criminal procedural evidence. It is concluded that an effective way to analytically obtain information about the suspect’s contacts, his probable connections and other entities having an interest of operational and investigative units of Ukrainian law enforcement agencies is to use the method of telephone connections analysis during pre-trial investigation of criminal offences.

KOMPARASI HASIL KAJIAN LINGUISTIK FORENSIK ANTARA PARADIGMA LAMA DAN PARADIGMA BARU TERHADAP PENANGANAN KASUS PENGHINAAN DAN/ATAU PENCEMARAN NAMA BAIK MELALUI MEDIA SOSIAL DI POLDA SULAWESI TENGAH

One of the cases handled by the Central Sulawesi Regional Police Investigators was the language crimes case in cyberspace, namely insult and/or defamation cases. In handling defamation cases on social media, such as: Facebook and WhatsApp, the Central Sulawesi Police investigators involved linguists or expert witnesses to reveal the meaning of language through forensic linguistic studies. Forensic linguistics was a linguistics branch which analyzed and researches language used as a tool of evidence in courts and the legal field. The linguistic methods application to legal issues was one of the forensic linguistics functions as an applied science where various linguistic theories could be applied in the linguistic samples analysis on the investigative process. The results study showed that it’s stated in the criminal procedure evidence form (BAP). Furthermore, in determining the articles to be charged by the language crimes perpetrators, the police investigators were guided by Law Number 19 of 2016 amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning ITE (as the old paradigm). Furthermore, a joint decree (SKB) by the Communication and Information Minister, the National Police Chief, and the Attorney General would serve as a guideline for the implementation criteria for the 2021 Electronic Information and Transaction Law (as a new paradigm). The study purpose was to reveal the results of the comparative analysis of linguists who still use the old paradigm with the new paradigm for handling cases of insults and/or defamation through social media at the Central Sulawesi Regional Police. The method used was descriptive qualitative method. The data collection technique used was a documentary study. The four copies form data of the BAP results from the forensic linguistic study would be compared or compared based on the old paradigm and the new paradigm. The BAP four copies which included five cases insult and/or defamation through Facebook as referred to in Article 27 paragraph (3) in conjunction with Article 45 paragraph (3) of the Republic of Indonesia Law no. 16 of 2016 amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning electronic information and transactions, (a) Cases reported to the Central Sulawesi Regional Police based on police report number: LP/129/III/2017/SPKT, dated March 12 2017, (b) Cases reported to Central Sulawesi Regional Police based on police report number: LP/247/IV/2017/SPKT, dated May 08 2017, (c) Cases reported to Central Sulawesi Police based on police report number, LP/478/X/2017/SPKT, 28 October 2017, (d) Cases reported to Central Sulawesi Regional Police based on police report number LP/109/IV/2019/SPKT, 08 April 2019. The study results indicated that there were differences between the old paradigm and the new paradigm in determining legal policies (articles determination) on insult and/or defamation cases handling of five cases which had been handled by Central Sulawesi Regional Police investigators.