criminal psychology-第30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！


quently　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。　Correctness　can　be　determined　only　through　testing　the　single　statements；　the　willingness　and　ability　of　each　witness；　both　in　themselves　and　in　relation　to　all　the　presented　material。

Let　us　take　now　the　third　condition　of　our　suppositious　case；　i。　e。　partial　confession。　It　is　generally　self…evident　that　the　value　of　the　latter　is　to　be　judged　according　to　its　own　nature。　The　confession　must　be　accepted　as　a　means　of　proof；　not　as　proof；　and　this　demands　that　it　shall　be　consistent　with　the　rest　of　the　evidence；　for　in　that　way　only　can　it　become　proof。　But　it　is　most　essential　that　the　confession　shall　be　internally　tested；　i。　e。　examined　for　logical　and　psychological　consistency。　This　procedure　is　especially　necessary　with　regard　to　certain　definite　confessions。

（a）　Confessions　given　without　motive。

（b）　Partial　confessions。

（c）　Confessions　implying　the　guilt　of　another。

（a）　Logic　is；　according　to　Schiel＇1＇　the　science　of　evidencenot　of　finding　evidence　but　of　rendering　evidence　evidential。　This　is　particularly　true　with　regard　to　confessions；　if　we　substitute　psychology　for　logic。　It　is　generally　true　that　many　propositions　hold　so　long　only　as　they　are　not　doubted；　and　such　is　the　case　with　many　confessions。　The　crime　is　confessed；　he　who　confesses　to　it　is　always　a　criminal；　and　no　man　doubts　it；　and　so　the　confession

＇1＇　J。　Schiel：　Die　Methode　der　Induktiven　Forschung。　Braunschweig　1865。

　stands。　But　as　soon　as　doubt；　justified　or　unjustified；　occurs；　the　question　takes　quite　a　different　form。　The　confession　has　first　served　as　proof；　but　now　psychological　examination　alone　will　show　whether　it　can　continue　to　serve　as　proof。

The　most　certain　foundation　for　the　truth　of　confession　in　any　case　is　the　establishment　of　a　clear　motive　for　itand　that　is　rarely　present。　Of　course　the　motive　is　not　always　absent　because　we　do　not　immediately　recognize　it；　but　it　is　not　enough　to　suppose　that　the　confession　does　not　occur　without　a　reason。　That　supposition　would　be　approximately　true；　but　it　need　not　be　true。　If　a　confession　is　to　serve　evidentially　the　motive　_*must_　be　clear　and　indubitable。　Proof　of　its　mere　existence　is　insufficient；　we　must　understand　the　confession　in　terms　of　all　the　factors　that　caused　it。　The　process　of　discovering　these　factors　is　purely　logical　and　generally　established　indirectly　by　means　of　an　apagogue。　This　is　essentially　the　proof　by　negation；　but　it　may　serve　in　connection　with　a　disjunctive　judgment　which　combines　possible　alternatives　as　a　means　of　confirmation。　We　are；　then；　to　bring　together　all　conceivable　motives　and　study　the　confession　with　regard　to　them。　If　all；　or　most　of　them；　are　shown　to　be　impossible　or　insufficient；　we　have　left　only　the　judgment　of　one　or　more　conclusions；　and　with　this　we　have　an　essentially　psychological　problem。　Such　a　problem　is　seldom　simple　and　easy；　and　as　there　is　no　possibility　of　contradiction；　the　danger　is　nowhere　so　great　of　making　light　of　the　matter。　‘‘What　is　reasserted　is　half　proved。''　That　is　a　comfortable　assertion；　and　leads　to　considerable　incorrectness。　A　confession　is　only　established　in　truth　when　it　i