criminal psychology-第103部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


on　of　work　and　rest；　they　do　not　become　tramps；　while　the　latter；　lacking　these；　do　become　tramps。　In　truth；　the　former　have　naturally　a　need　and　inclination　for　hard　work　and　uniform　living；　have；　therefore；　no　inclination　to　tramping；　and　have　for　that　reason　chosen　their　difficult　calling。　The　latter；　on　the　other　hand；　felt　an　inclination　for　lighter；　more　irregular　work；　i。　e。；　were　already　possessed　of　an　inclination　for　vagabondage；　and　had；　hence；　chosen　the　business　of　baking；　grinding；　or　waiting。　The　real　tramp；　therefore；　is　not　a　criminal。　Vagabondage　is　no　doubt　the　kindergarten　of　criminals；　because　there　are　many　criminals　among　tramps；　but　the　true　vagabond　is　one　only　because　of　his　inclination　for　tramping。　He　is　a　degenerate。

Possibly　a　similar　account　of　other　types　may　be　rendered。　If　it　is　attained　by　means　of　a　statistic　developed　on　fundamental　psychological　principles；　it　would　give　us　ground　for　a　number　of　important　assumptions。　It　would　help　us　to　make　parallel　inferences；　inasmuch　as　it　would　permit　us　to　determine　the　fundamental　inclination　of　the　person　by　considering　his　calling；　his　way　of　approaching　his　work；　his　environment；　his　choice　of　a　wife；　his　preferred　pleasures；　etc。　And　then　we　should　be　able　to　connect　this　inclination　with　the　deed　in　question。　It　is　difficult　to　fix　upon　the　　relation　between　inclination　and　character；　and　the　agreement　will　be　only　general　when　a　man's　character　is　called　all　those　things　to　which　he　is　naturally；　or　by　education；　inclined。　But　it　is　certain　that　a　good　or　bad　character　exists　only　then　when　its　maxims　of　desire　and　action　express　themselves　in　fact。　The　emphasis　must　be　on　the　fact；　what　is　factual　may　be　discovered；　and　these　discoveries　may　be　of　use。


Section　89。　（5）　_Other　Differences_。

The　ancient　classification　of　individuals　according　to　temperaments　is　of　little　use。　There　were　four　of　them；　called　humors；　and　a　series　of　characteristics　was　assigned　to　each；　but　not　one　of　them　had　all　of　its　characteristics　at　once。　Hence　temperaments　determined　according　to　these　four　categories　do　not　really　exist；　and　the　categorical　distinction　can　have　no　practical　value。　If；　however；　we　make　use　of　the　significant　general　meaning　of　temperament；　the　apparatus　of　circumstance　which　is　connected　with　this　distinction　becomes　superfluous。　If　you　call　every　active　person　choleric；　every　truculent　one　sanguine；　every　thoughtful　one　phlegmatic；　and　every　sad　one　melancholy；　you　simply　add　a　technical　expression　to　a　few　of　the　thousands　of　adjectives　that　describe　these　things。　These　four　forms　are　not　the　only　ones　there　are。　Apart　from　countless　medial　and　transitional　forms；　there　are　still　large　numbers　that　do　not　fit　in　any　one　of　these　categories。　Moreover；　temperament　alters　with　age；　health；　experience；　and　other　accidents；　so　that　the　differentiation　is　not　even　justified　by　the　constancy　of　the　phenomenon。　Nevertheless；　it　is　to　some　degree　significant　because　any　form　of　it　indicates　a　certain　authority；　and　because　each　one　of　these　four　categories　serves　to　connect　a　series　of　phenomena　and　assumes　this　connection　to　be　indubitable；　although　there　is　absolutely　no　necessity　for　it。　When　Machiavelli　says　that　the　world　belongs　to　the　phlegmatic；　he　certainly　did　not　have　in　mind　that　complex　of　phenomena　which　are　habitually　understood　as　the　characteristics　of　the　phlegmatic　humor。　He　wanted　simply　to　say　that　extremes　of　conduct　lead　to　as　little　in　the　daily　life　as　in　politics；　that　everything　must　be　reflected　upon　and　repeatedly　tested　before　its　realization　is　attempted；　that　only　then　can　progress；　even　if　slow；　be　made。　If　he　had　said；　the　world　belongs　to　the　cautious　or　reflective　person；　we　should　not　have　found　his　meaning　to　be　different。

When　we　seek　clearly　to　understand　the　nature　and　culture　of　　an　individual；　an　investigation　into　his　temperament　does　not　help　us　in　the　least。　Let　us　consider　then；　some　other　characteristic　on　which　is　based　the　judgment　of　individuals。　The　proverb　says　that　laughter　betrays　a　man。　If　in　the　theater；　you　know　the　subject　of　laughter；　the　manner　of　laughter；　and　the　point　at　which　laughter　first　occurred；　you　know　where　the　most　educated　and　the　least　educated　people　are。　Schopenhauer　says　that　the　intelligent　man　finds　everything　funny；　the　logical　man　nothing；　and　according　to　Erdmann　（in　ber　die　Dummheit）；　the　distressing　or　laughable　characteristics　of　an　object；　shows　not　its　nature；　but　the　nature　of　the　observer。　It　would　seem　that　the　criminalist　might　save　himself　much　work　by　observing　the　laughter　of　his　subjects。　The　embarrassed；　foolish　snickering　of　the　badly　observing　witness；　the　painful　smile　of　the　innocent　prisoner；　or　the　convicted　penitent；　the　cruel　laughter　of　the　witness　glad　of　the　damage　he　has　done；　the　evil　laughter　of　the　condemning　accomplice；　the　happy；　weak　laughter　of　the　innocent　who　has　adduced　evidence　of　his　innocence；　and　the　countless　other　forms　of　laughter；　all　these　vary　so　much　with　the　character　of　the　laugher；　and　are　so　significant；　that　hardly　anything　compares　with　them　in　value。　When　you　remember；　moreover；　that　concealment　during　laughter　is　not　easy；　at　least　at　the　moment　when　the　laughter　ceases；　you　see　how　very　important　laughter　may　be　in　determining　a　case。

Of　equal　importance　with　laughter　are　certain　changes　which　may　occur　in　people　during　a　very　short　time。　If　we　observe　in　the　course　of　the　daily　life；　that　people；　without　any　apparent　reason；　so　change　that　we　can　hardly　recognize　them；　the　change　becomes　ten　times　more　intense　under　the　influence　of　guilt　or　even　of　imprisonment。　Somebody　said　that　isolation　has　revealed　the　greatest　men；　the　greatest　fools；　and　the　greatest　criminals。　What；　then；　might　be　the　influence　of　compulsory　isolation；　i。　e。；　of　imprisonment！　We　fortunately　do　not　live　in　a　time　which　permits　imprisonment　for　months　and　years　in　even　the　simplest　cases；　but　under　certain　circumstances　even　a　few　days'　imprisonment　may　completely　alter　a　person。　Embitterment　or　wildness　may　exhibit　itself；　just　as　sorrow　and　softness；　during　the　stay　under　arrest。　And　hence；　the　criminalist　who　does　not　frequently　see　and　deal　with　his　subjects　does　not　perform　his　duty。　I　do　not　mean；　of　course；　that　he　should　see　them　for　the　purpose　of　getting　a　confession　out　of　an　attack　of　morbidity；　I　mean　only；　that　this　is　the　one　way　of　getting　a　just　and　correct　notion　of　the　case。　Every　criminalist　of　experience　will　　grant　that　he　sees　the　event；　particularly　the　motives　of　the　criminal；　otherwise　after　the　first　examination　than　after　the　later　ones；　and　that　his　later　notions　are　mainly　the　more　correct　ones。　If　we　set　aside　the　unfortunate　cases　in　which　the　individual　held　for　examination　is　instructed　by　his　prison…mates　and　becomes　still　more　spoiled；　I　might　permit　myself　the　assertion　that　imprisonment　tends　to　show　the　individual　more　correctly　as　he　is；　that　the　strange　surroundings；　the　change　from　his　former　position；　the　opportunity　to　think　over　his　situation　may；　if　there　are　no　opposing　influences；　help　the　criminalist　a　great　deal；　and　this　fact　is　confirmed　in　the　superior　results　of　later　to　earlier　examinations。

In　addition；　the　bodily　condition　and　the　health　of　the　prisoner　change　almost　always。　The　new　mode　of　life；　the　different　food　and　surroundings；　the　lack　of　movement；　the　moral　effect；　work　directly　on　the　body；　and　we　must　confess；　unfortunately；　on　health。　There　are；　however；　cases　in　which　health　has　been　improved　by　imprisonment；　especially　the　health　of　people　who　have　led　a　wild；　irregular；　drunken　life；　or　such　who　have　had　to　worry　and　care　too　much。　But　these　are　exceptions；　and　as　a　rule　the　prisoner's　physique　suffers　a　great　deal；　but　fortunately　for　a　short　time　only。　The　influence　of　such　effects　on　the　mind　is　familiar。　The　bodily　misfortune　gives　a　wide　opening　for　complete　change　in　moral　nature；　health　sustains　the　atheist　in　darkness。　This　fact；　as　mentioned　by　Bain；　may　serve　to　explain　the　origin　of　many　a　confession　which　has　saved　an　innocent　person　at　the　last　moment。

Nor　must　we　forget　that　timeand　for　the　prisoner；　imprisonment　is　time　endowed　with　powereffects　many　an　adjustment　of　extremes。　We　know　that　utter　evil　is　as　rare　as　perfect　virtue。　We　have　nothing　to　do　with　the　latter；　but　we　almost　as　infrequently　meet　the　former。　The　longer　we　deal　with　‘‘bad　men；''　the　more　inclined　are　we　to　see　the　very　summit　of　devilment　as　the　result　of　need　and　friendlessness；　weakness；　foolishness；　flightiness；　and　just　simple；　real；　human　poorness　of　spirit。　Now；　what　we　find　so　redistributed　in　the　course　of　years；　we　often　find　crushed　together　and　fallen　apart　in　a　short　time。　Today　the　prisoner　seems　to　us　the　most　dreadful　criminal；　in　a　few　days；　we　have　calmed　down；　have　learned　to　know　the　case　from　another　side；　the　criminal　has　shown　his　real　nature　more　clearly；　and　our　whole　notion　of　him　has　changed。

I　frequently　think　of　the　simple　story　of　Charles　XII's　sudden　entry　into　Dresden。　The　city　fathers　immediately　called　an　ex…　　traordinary　session　for　the　next　day　in　order　to　discuss；　as　the　Swedish　king　supposed；　what　they　should　have　done　the　day　before。　Every　examined　prisoner　does　the　same　thing。　When　he　leaves　the　court　he　is　already　thinking　of　what　he　should　have　said　differently；　and　he　repeats　his　reflections　until　the　next　examination。　Hence；　his　frequently　almost　inexplicable　variety　of　statements；　and　hence；　also；　the　need　of　frequent　examination。

Finally；　there　is　the　fact　Mittermaier　has　pointed　tothe　importance　of　the　criminalist's　own　culture　and　character。　‘‘If　a　girl　testifies　for　her　lover　and　against　her　brother；　the　question　in　judgment　arises；　which　voice　is　the　more　powerful？　The　judge　will　not　easily　be　able　to　divorce　this　standard　of　judgment　from　himself　and　his　own　view　of　life。''　This　is　a　frequent　occurrence。　You　consider　a　difficult　psychological　case　in　all　its　aspects；　and　suddenly；　without　knowing　how　or　why；　you　have　found　its　solution：　‘‘It　must　have　been　so　and　not　otherwise；　he　has　acted　so　and　so　for　this　reason；　etc。''　A　close　examination　of　such　a　definite　inference　will　convinc