criminal psychology-第32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！


e　to　the　other；　partly　by　the　personality　of　the　new　victim。　If　this　passion　was　strong　enough　to　deal；　if　I　may　use　the　term；　anti…egoistically；　it　can　be　discovered　only　through　the　study　of　its　possessor。　It　may　be　presupposed　that　everybody　acts　according　to　his　own　advantagethe　question　asks　merely　what　this　advantage　is　in　the　concrete；　and　whether　he　who　seeks　it；　seeks　it　prudently。　Even　the　satisfaction　of　revenge　may　be　felt　as　an　advantage　if　it　is　more　pleasurable　than　the　pain　which　follows　confessionthe　matter　is　one　of　relative　weight　and　is　prudently　sought　as　the　substitution　of　an　immediate　and　petty　advantage　for　a　later　and　greater　one。

Another　series　of　procedures　is　of　importance　in　determining　proof；　where　circumstances　are　denied　which　have　no　essential　relation　to　the　crime。　They　bring　the　presentation　of　proof　into　a　bypath　so　that　the　essential　problem　of　evidence　is　left　behind。　Then　if　the　denied　circumstance　is　established　as　a　fact　it　is　falsely　supposed　that　the　guilt　is　so　established。　And　in　this　direction　many　mistakes　are　frequently　made。　There　are　two　suggestive　examples。　Some　years　ago　there　lived　in　Vienna　a　very　pretty　bachelor　girl；　a　sales…person　in　a　very　respectable　shop。　One　day　she　was　found　dead　in　her　room。　Inasmuch　as　the　judicial　investigation　showed　acute　arsenic　poisoning；　and　as　a　tumbler　half　full　of　sweetened　water　and　a　considerable　quantity　of　finely　powdered　arsenic　was　found　on　her　table；　these　two　conditions　were　naturally　correlated。　From　the　neighbors　it　was　learned　that　the　dead　girl　had　for　some　time　been　intimate　with　an　unknown　gentleman　who　visited　her　　frequently；　but　whose　presence　was　kept　as　secret　as　possible　by　both。　This　gentleman；　it　was　said；　had　called　on　the　girl　on　the　evening　before　her　death。　The　police　inferred　that　the　man　was　a　very　rich　merchant；　residing　in　a　rather　distant　region；　who　lived　peaceably　with　his　much　older　wife　and　therefore　kept　his　illicit　relations　with　the　girl　secret。　It　was　further　established　at　the　autopsy　that　the　girl　was　pregnant；　and　so　the　theory　was　formed　that　the　merchant　had　poisoned　his　mistress　and　in　the　examination　this　deed　was　set　down　against　him。　Now；　if　the　man　had　immediately　confessed　that　he　knew　the　dead　girl；　and　stood　in　intimate　relation　with　her　and　that　he　had　called　on　her　the　last　evening；　if　he　had　asserted　perhaps　that　she　was　in　despair　about　her　condition；　had　quarreled　with　him　and　had　spoken　of　suicide；　etc。；　then　suicide　would　unconditionally　have　had　to　be　the　verdict。　In　any　event；　he　never　could　have　been　accused；　inasmuch　as　there　was　no　additional　evidence　of　poisoning。　But　the　man　conceived　the　unfortunate　notion　of　denying　that　he　knew　the　dead　girl　or　had　any　relations　with　her；　or　that　he　had　ever；　even　on　that　last　evening；　called　on　her。　He　did　this　clearly　because　he　did　not　want　to　confess　a　culpable　relation　to　public　opinion；　especially　to　his　wife。　And　the　whole　question　turned　upon　this　denied　circumstance。　The　problem　of　evidence　was　no　longer；　‘‘Has　he　killed　her；''　but　‘‘Did　he　carry　on　an　intimacy　with　her。''　Then　it　was　proved　beyond　reasonable　doubt　through　a　long　series　of　witnesses　that　his　visits　to　the　girl　were　frequent；　that　he　had　been　there　on　the　evening　before　her　death；　and　that　there　could　be　no　possible　doubt　as　to　his　identity。　That　settled　his　fate　and　he　was　sentenced　to　death。　If　we　consider　the　case　psychologically　we　have　to　grant　that　his　denial　of　having　been　present　might　have　for　motive　as　much　the　fact　that　he　had　poisoned　the　girl；　as　that　he　did　not　want　to　admit　the　relation　at　the　beginning。　Later　on；　when　he　completely　understood　the　seriousness　of　his　situation；　he　thought　a　change　of　front　too　daring　and　hoped　to　get　on　better　by　sticking　to　his　story。　Now；　as　we　have　seen；　what　was　proved　was　the　fact　that　he　knew　and　visited　the　girl；　what　he　was　sentenced　for　was　the　murder　of　the　girl。

A　similar　case；　particularly　instructive　in　its　development；　and　especially　interesting　because　of　the　significant　study　（of　the　suggestibility　of　witnesses）　of　Dr。　Von　Schrenck…Notzing　and　Prof。　Grashey；　kept　the　whole　of　Munich　in　excitement　some　years　ago。　A　widow；　her　grown…up　daughter；　and　an　old　servant　were　stifled　　and　robbed　in　their　home。　The　suspicion　of　the　crime　fell　upon　a　brick…layer　who　had　once　before　made　a　confession　concerning　another　murder　and　of　whom　it　was　known　that　some　time　before　the　deed　was　done　he　had　been　building　a　closet　into　the　house　of　the　three　murdered　women。　Through　various　combinations　of　the　facts　the　supposition　was　reached　that　the　mason　got　entry　into　the　house　on　the　pretense　of　examining　whether　or　not　the　work　he　had　done　on　the　closet　had　caused　any　damage；　and　had　then　committed　the　thieving　murder。　Now　here　again；　if　the　mason　had　said：　‘‘Yes；　I　was　without　a　job；　wanted　to　get　work；　entered　the　house　under　the　assigned　pretense；　and　appeared　to　see　about　the　closet　and　had　myself　paid　for　the　apparently　repaired　improvement；　left　the　three　women　unharmed；　and　they　must　only　after　that　have　been　killed；''if　he　had　said　this；　his　condemnation　would　have　been　impossible；　for　all　the　other　testimony　was　of　subordinate　importance。　Now　suppose　the　man　was　innocent；　what　could　he　have　thought：　‘‘I　have　already　been　examined　once　in　a　murder　case；　I　found　myself　in　financial　difficulties；　I　still　am　in　such　difficultiesif　I　admit　that　I　was　at　the　place　of　the　crime　at　the　time　the　crime　was　committed；　I　will　get　into　serious　trouble；　which　I　won't；　if　I　deny　my　presence。''　So　he　really　denied　having　been　in　the　house　or　in　the　street　for　some　time；　and　inasmuch　as　this　was　shown　by　many　witnesses　to　be　untrue；　his　presence　at　the　place　where　the　crime　was　committed　was　identified　with　the　unproved　fact　that　he　had　committed　it；　and　he　was　condemned。

I　do　not　assert　that　either　one　or　the　other　of　these　persons　was　condemned　guiltlessly；　or　that　such　‘‘side　issues''　have　no　value　and　ought　not　to　be　proved。　I　merely　point　out　that　caution　is　necessary　in　two　directions。　First　of　all；　these　side　issues　must　not　be　identified　with　the　central　issue。　Their　demonstration　is　only　preparatory　work；　the　value　of　which　must　be　established　cautiously　and　without　prejudice。　It　may　be　said　that　the　feeling　of　satisfaction　with　what　has　been　done　causes　jurists　frequently　to　forget　what　must　yet　be　done；　or　to　undervalue　it。　Further；　a　psychological　examination　must　seek　out　the　motives　which　led　or　might　have　led　the　accused　to　deny　some　point　not　particularly　dangerous　to　him。　In　most　cases　an　intelligible　ground　for　such　action　can　be　discovered；　and　if　the　psychologically　prior　conditions　are　conceived　with　sufficient　narrowness　to　keep　us　from　assuming　unconditional　guilt；　we　are　at　least　called　upon　to　be　careful。　

This　curious　danger　of　identification　of　different　issues　as　the　aim　of　presentation　of　evidence；　occurs　much　more　frequently　and　with　comparatively　greater　degree　in　the　cases　of　individual　witnesses　who　are　convinced　of　the　principal　issue　when　a　side　issue　is　proved。　Suppose　a　witness　is　called　on　to　identify　a　man　as　somebody　who　had　stabbed　him　in　a　serious　assault；　and　that　he　has　also　to　explain　whether　the　quarrel　he　had　had　with　this　man　a　short　time　ago　was　of　importance。　If　the　suspect　is　desirous　of　having　the　quarrel　appear　as　harmless；　and　the　wounded　person　asserts　that　the　quarrel　was　serious；　the　latter　will　be　convinced；　the　moment　his　contention　may　be　viewed　as　true；　that　his　opponent　was　really　the　person　who　had　stabbed　him。　There　is；　of　course；　a　certain　logical　justification　for　this　supposition；　but　the　psychological　difficulty　with　it　is　the　fact　that　this　case；　like　many　others；　involves　the　identification　of　what　is　inferred　with　what　is　perceived。　It　is　for　this　reason　that　the　mere　fact　of　arrest　is　to　most　people　a　conviction　of　guilt。　The　witness　who　had　first　identified　A　as　only　the　probable　criminal　becomes　absolutely　convinced　of　it　when　A　is　presented　to　him　in　stripes；　even　though　he　knows　that　A　has　been　arrested　on　his　own　testimony　alone。　The　appearance　and　the　surroundings　of　the　prisoner　influence　many；　and　not　merely　uneducated　people；　against　the　prisoner；　and　they　think；　involuntarily；　‘‘If　he　were　not　the　one；　they　would　not　have　him　here。''


Section　24。　（b）　Causation。＇1＇


If　we　understand　by　the　term　cause　the　axiom　that　every　change　has　an　occasion；　hence　that　every　event　is　bound　up　with　a　number　of　conditions　which　when　lacking　in　whole　or　in　part　would　prevent　the　appearance　of　the　event；　while　their　presence　would　compel　its　appearance；　then　the　whole　business　of　the　criminalist　is　the　study　of　causes。　He　must　indeed　study　not　only　whether　and　how　crime　and　criminal　are　causally　related；　but　also　how　their　individual　elements　are　bound　to　each　other　and　to　the　criminal；　and　finally；　what　causation　in　the　criminal；　considered　with　regard　to　his　individual　characteristics；　inevitably　led　to　the　commission　of　the　crime。　The　fact　that　we　deal　with　the　problem　of　cause　brings　us　close　to　other　sciences　which　have　the　same　task　in　their　own　re…

＇1＇　Max　Mayer：　Der　Kausalzusammenhang　zwischen　Handlung　und　Erfolg　in　Strafrecht。　1899。　　von　Rohland。　Die　Kausallehre　im　Strafreeht。　Leipzig　1903　　H。　Gross's　Archiv；　XV；　191。

　searches；　and　this　is　one　of　the　reasons　for　the　criminalist's　necessary　concern　with　other　disciplines。　Of　course　no　earnest　criminalist　can　pursue　other　studies　for　their　own　sane；　he　has　no　time；　but　he　must　look　about　him　and　study　the　methods　used　in　other　sciences。　In　the　other　sciences　we　learn　method；　but　not　as　method；　and　that　is　all　that　we　need。　And　we　observe　that　the　whole　problem　of　method　is　grounded　on　causation。　Whether　empirically　or　aprioristically　does　not　matter。　We　are　concerned　solely　with　causation。

In　certain　directions　our　task　is　next　to　the　historians'　who　aim　to　bring　men　and　events　into　definite　causal　sequence。　The　causal　law　is　indubitably　the　ideal　and　only　instructive　instrument　in　the　task　of　writing　convincing　history；　and　it　is　likewise　without　question　that　the　same　method　is　specifically　required　in　the　presentation　of　evidence。　Thus：　‘‘This　is　the　causal　chai