criminal psychology-第27章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



TITLE　B。　THE　CONDITIONS　FOR　DEFINING　THEORIES。

Topic　I。　THE　MAKING　OF　INFERENCES。

Section　22。


The　study　of　the　human　soul　as　psychology；　has　for　its　subject　the　whole　stream　of　conscious　life　and　for　its　aim　the　discovery　of　the　occurrence　and　relation　of　the　laws　of　human　thought。　Now　whether　these　relations　imply　the　coherence　of　the　objects　thought　about　or　not；　so　long　as　logic　is　dealing　with　the　laws　according　to　which　thoughts　must　be　correlated　in　order　to　attain　to　objectively　valid　knowledge；　all　questions　that　deal　with　the　formal　aspect　of　thinking　do　not　enter　the　field　of　psychological　investigation。　The　general　psychological　problem　is　to　describe　the　actual　psychic　events　as　they　occur；　to　analyze　them　into　their　simplest　elements；　and　inasmuch　as　it　is　this　purely　pragmatic　application　of　psychology　to　the　problem　of　inference　that　concerns　us；　we　need　to　deal　only　with　that　law　which　defines　the　combination　of　images　and　with　the　question；how　the　spirit　achieves　this　combination。　The　material　aspect　of　this　question　is　therefore　psychological。　The　legal　importance　of　the　problem　lies　in　the　very　potent　fact　that　inferences　and　theories　are　often　constructed　which　are　formally　or　logically　absolutely　free　of　error；　yet　psychologically　full　of　errors　that　no　logic　whatever　could　correct。　We　have；　therefore；　to　consider　at　least　the　most　important　conditions　which　determine　the　manner　of　our　inferences。

The　right　which　lawyers　possess　of　studying　these　questions；　so　far　as　they　lie　in　our　field；　is　of　modern　establishment。　According　to　Hillebrand＇1＇　the　theory　of　knowledge　has　to…day　broken　up　into　individual　theories；　involving　the　certain　needs　of　special　fields　of　knowledge。　The　place　of　the　epistomologists；　who　are　professionals　and　beyond　the　pale　of　individual　disciplines；　is　now　taken　by　the　representatives　of　those　disciplines　and　each　works　expressly　on　his　own　epistomological　problem。　Our　especial　problem　is　the　drawing　of　inferences　from　the　material　presented　to　us　or　brought　together　by　our　efforts；　just　as　in　other　disciplines。　If　we　set　ourselves　the

＇1＇　F。　Hillebrand：　zur　Lehre　der　Hypothesenbildung。

　task　of　determining　the　procedure　when　subjecting　the　fundamental　principles　of　our　work　to　revision　and　examining　their　utility；　we　merely　ask　whether　the　process　is　voluntary　or　according　to　fixed　laws；　and　having　cleared　up　that　point　we　ask　what　influence　psychological　conditions　exercise　on　the　situation。　It　is；　indeed；　said　that　thinking　is　a　congenital　endowment；　not　to　be　learned　from　rules。　But　the　problem　is　not　teaching　the　inferrer　to　think；　the　problem　is　the　examination　of　how　inferences　have　been　made　by　another　and　what　value　his　inferences　may　have　for　our　own　conclusions。　And　our　own　time；　which　has　been　bold　enough　to　lay　this　final　conclusion　in　even　the　most　important　criminal　cases；　in　the　hands　of　laymen；　this　time　is　doubly　bound　at　least　to　prepare　all　possible　control　for　this　work；　to　measure　what　is　finally　taken　as　evidence　with　the　finest　instruments　possible；　and　to　present　to　the　jury　only　what　has　been　proved　and　repeatedly　examined。

It　might　almost　seem　as　if　the　task　the　jury　trial　sets　the　judge　has　not　been　clearly　perceived。　A　judge　who　thinks　he　has　performed　it　when　he　has　cast　before　the　jury　the　largest　possible　mass　of　testimony；　more　or　less　reviewed；　and　who　sees　how　people；　who　perhaps　for　the　first　time　in　their　lives；　are　involved　in　a　court　of　law；　who　perhaps　see　a　criminal　for　the　first　time；　and　are　under　these　circumstances　the　arbiters　of　a　man's　fate；a　judge　who　sees　all　this　and　is　satisfied；　is　not　effective　in　his　work。　Nowadays　more　than　ever；　it　is　for　the　judge　to　test　all　evidence　psychologically；　to　review　what　is　only　apparently　clear；　to　fill　out　lacunae；　and　to　surmount　difficulties；　before　he　permits　the　material　brought　together　in　a　very　few　hours　to　pass　into　the　jury's　hands。　According　to　Hillebrand；　much　that　seems　‘‘self…evident''　shows　itself　dependent　on　definite　experience　attained　in　the　process　of　hundreds　of　repetitions　in　the　daily　life；　the　very　impression　of　self…evidence　is　frequently　produced　by　a　mere　chance　instinct　about　what　should　be　held　for　true。　Hume　has　already　shown　how　the　most　complex　and　abstract　concepts　are　derived　from　sensation。　Their　relation　must　be　studied；　and　only　when　we　can　account　for　every　psychic　process　with　which　we　have　to　concern　ourselves；　is　our　duty　properly　fulfilled。


Section　23。　（a）　Proof。


Mittermaier＇1＇　holds　that　‘‘as　a　means　of　testimony　in　the　legal　sense　of　that　term　every　possible　source　must　be　examined　which

＇1＇　C。　J。　A。　Mittermaier：　Die　Lehre　vom　Beweis　im　deutschen　Strafprozess。　Darmstadt　1834。

　may　suffice　the　judge　according　to　law。　And　from　such　examination　only　may　the　requisite　certainties　be　attained　from　which　the　judge　is　to　assume　as　determined；　facts　relevant　to　his　judgment。''　Only　the　phrase　‘‘according　to　law''　needs　explanation；　inasmuch　as　the　‘‘source''　of　reasons　and　certainties　must　satisfy　the　legal　demands　not　only　formally　but　must　sustain　materially　every　possible　test；　whether　circumstantial　or　logico…psychologic。　If；　for　example；　the　fundamental　sources　should　be　a　combination　of　（1）　a　judicial　examination　of　premises　（lokalaugenschein）；　（2）　testimony　of　witnesses；　and　（3）　a　partial　confession；　the　requirements　of　the　law　would　be　satisfied　if　the　protocol；　（1）；　were　written　or　made　according　to　prescribed　forms；　if　a　sufficient　number　of　properly　summoned　witnesses　unanimously　confirmed　the　point　in　question；　and　if　finally　the　confession　were　made　and　protocoled　according　to　law。　Yet；　though　the　law　be　satisfied；　not　only　may　the　conclusion　be　wholly　false　but　every　particular　part　of　the　evidence　may　be　perfectly　useless；　without　the　presence　anywhere　of　intentional　untruth。　The　personal　examination　may　have　been　made　by　a　judge　who　half　the　time；　for　some　sufficiently　cogent　reason；　had　a　different　conception　of　the　case　than　the　one　which　later　appeared　to　be　true。　It　need　not　have　been　necessary　that　there　should　be　mixed　therewith　false　information　of　witnesses；　incorrect　observation；　or　such　other　mistakes。　There　need　only　have　been　a　presupposition；　accepted　at　the　beginning　of　the　examination；　when　the　examination　of　the　premises　took　place；　as　to　the　visible　condition　of　things；　and　this　might　have　given　apparent　justification　to　doubtful　material　and　have　rendered　it　intelligible；　only　to　be　shown　later　as　false。　The　so…called　‘‘local　examination''　however；　is　generally　supposed　to　be　‘‘objective。''　It　is　supposed　to　deal　only　with　circumstantial　events；　and　it　does　not　occur　to　anybody　to　modify　and　alter　it　when　it　is　certainly　known　that　at　another　point　the　situation　has　taken　an　altogether　different　form。　The　objectivity　of　the　local　examination　is　simply　non…existent；　and　if　it　were　really　objective；　i。　e。；　contained　merely　dry　description　with　so　and　so　many　notations　of　distances　and　other　figures；　it　would　be　of　no　use。　Every　local　examination；　to　be　of　use；　must　give　an　accurate　picture　of　the　mental　process　of　him　who　made　it。　On　the　one　hand　it　must　bring　vividly　to　the　mind　of　the　reader；　even　of　the　sentencing　judge；　what　the　situation　was；　on　the　other；　it　must　demonstrate　what　the　examiner　thought　and　represented　to　himself　in　order　that　the　reader；　who　may　have　different　opinions；　　may　have　a　chance　to　make　corrections。　If　I；　for　example；　get　the　impression　that　a　fire　was　made　through　carelessness；　and　that　somebody　lost　his　life　on　account　of　it；　and　if　I　made　my　local　examination　with　this　presupposition　in　mind；　the　description　will　certainly　seem　different　from　that　made　under　the　knowledge　that　the　fire　was　intentional　and　made　to　kill。　At　trial　the　description　of　local　conditions　will　be　read　and　entered　as　important　testimony。　It　satisfies　the　law　if　it　is　taken　according　to　form；　has　the　correct　content；　and　is　read　as　prescribed。　But　for　our　conscience　and　in　truth　this　manuscript　can　be　correct　only　when　it　is　logically　and　psychologically　presented　revised　according　to　the　viewpoint　its　writer　would　have　had　if　he　had　been　in　possession　of　all　the　facts　in　possession　of　the　reader。　This　work　of　reconstruction　belongs　to　the　most　difficult　of　our　psychological　tasksbut　it　must　be　performed　unless　we　want　to　go　on　superficially　and　without　conscience。

The　judgment　and　interpretation　of　the　testimony　of　witnesses；　（2）；　demand　similar　treatment。　I　am　legally　right　if　I　base　my　judgment　on　the　testimony　of　witnesses　（provided　there　are　enough　of　them　and　they　are　properly　subpoenaed）　if　nothing　suggestive　is　offered　against　their　testimony；　if　they　do　not　contradict　each　other；　and　especially　if　there　are　no　contradictions　in　the　testimony　of　any　single　individual。　This　inner　contradiction　is　rather　frequent；　and　the　inattention　with　which　the　protocols；　as　a　rule；　are　read；　and　the　scanty　degree　in　which　the　testimony　is　tested　logically　and　psychologically；　are　shown　clearly　by　the　fact　that　the　inner　contradictions　are　not　observed　and　worked　over　more　frequently。　As　evidence　of　this；　let　us　consider　a　few　cases　that　are　generally　told　as　extravagant　jokes。　Suppose　that　a　man　dreamed　that　his　head　was　cut　off　and　that　that　dream　so　affected　him　that　he　died　of　apoplexy　yet　not　everybody　asks　how　the　dream　was　discovered。　In　a　like　manner　people　hear　with　disgust　that　somebody　who　has　lost　his　arm；　in　despair　cut　off　his　other　arm　with　an　axe　in　order　more　easily　to　get　assistance；　and　yet　they　do　not　ask　‘‘how。''　Or　again　when　somebody　is　asked　if　he　knows　the　romance　‘‘The　Emperor　Joseph　and　The　Beautiful　Railway…signal…man's　Daughter；''　the　anachronism　of　the　title　does　not　occur　to　him；　and　nobody　thinks　of　the　impossibilities　of　the　vivid　description　of　a　man　walking　back　and　forth；　with　his　hands　behind　his　back；　reading　a　newspaper。

Much　testimony　contains　similar；　if　not　so　thorough…going　contradictions。　If　they　are　credited　in　spite　of　this　fact　the　silly　be…　　liever　may　be　blamed；　but　he　is　justified　in　the　eyes　of　the　law　if　the　above…mentioned　legal　conditions　were　satisfied。　Hence；　the　frightfully　frequent　result：　‘‘Whether　the　witness's　deposition　is　true；　is　a　matter　for　his　own　conscience；　eventually　he　may　be　arrested　for　perjury；　but　he　has　made　his　statements　and　I　judge　accordingly。''　What　is　intended　with　such　a　statement　is　this：　‘‘I　hide　behind　the　law；　I　am　permitted　to　judge　in　such　a　case　in　such　a　way；　and　nobody　can　blame　me。''　But　it　is　correct　to　assert　that　in　such　cases　there　is　really　no　evidence；　there　is　only　a　form　of　evidence。　It　can　be　actually　evidential　only　when　the　testimony　is　tested　logically　and　psychologically；　and　the　ability　and　willingness　of　the　witness　to　tell　the　truth　is　made　clear。　Of　course　it　is　true；　as　Mittermaier　says；　that　the　utterance　of　witnesses　is　tested　by　its　consistency　with　other　evidence；　but　that　is　neither　the　only　test　nor　the　most　valid；　for　there　is　always　the　more　important　internal　test；　in　the　first　place；　and　in　the　second　place；　it　is　not　conclusive　because　the　comparison　may　reveal　only　inconsistency；　but　can　not　establish　which　of　the　conflicting　statements　is　correct。　Correct