criminal psychology-第34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！


itness　stuck　to　his　statement：　‘‘the　man　who　had　once　had　something　to　do　with　killing　must　have　had　something　to　do　with　this　killing。''　In　a　similar　manner；　a　whole　village　accused　a　man　of　arson　because　he　was　born　on　the　night　on　which　a　neighboring　village　burned　down。　Here；　however；　there　was　no　additional　argument　in　the　belief　that　his　mother　had　absorbed　the　influence　of　the　fire　inasmuch　as　the　latter　was　told　that　there　had　been　a　fire　only　after　the　child　was　born。　‘‘He　once　had　something　to　do　with　fire；''　was　the　basis　of　the　judgment；　also　in　this　case。

There　are　innumerable　similar　examples　which；　with　a　large　number　of　habitual　superstitious　presuppositions；　make　only　false　causality。　Pearls　mean　tears　because　they　have　similar　form；　inasmuch　as　the　cuckoo　may　not　without　a　purpose　have　only　two　calls　at　one　time　and　ten　or　twenty　at　another；　the　calls　must　mean　the　number　of　years　before　death；　before　marriage；　or　of　a　certain　amount　of　money；　or　any　other　countable　thing。　Such　notions　are　so　firmly　rooted　in　the　peasantry　and　in　all　of　us；　that　they　come　to　the　surface；　whether　consciously　or　unconsciously；　and　influence　us　more　than　we　are　accustomed　to　suppose　they　do。　Whenever　anybody　assures　us　that　he　is　able　to　assert　absolutely；　though　not　altogether　prove　a　thing；　this　assurance　may　be　variously　grounded；　but　not　rarely　it　is　no　more　than　one　of　these　false　correlations。　Schopenhauer　has　said；　that　‘‘motivation　is　causality　seen　from　within；''and　one　may　add　conversely　that　causality　is　motivation　seen　from　without。　What　is　asserted　must　be　motivated；　and　that　is　done　by　means　of　causalityif　no　real　ultimate　cause　is　found　a　false；　superficial　and　insufficient　one　is　adopted；　inasmuch　as　we　ever　strive　to　relate　things　causally；　in　the　knowledge　that；　otherwise；　the　world　would　be　topsy…turvy。　‘‘Everywhere；''　says　Stricker；　‘‘we　learn　that　men　who　do　not　associate　their　experiences　according　to　right　cause　are　badly　adapted　to　their　environment；　the　pictures　of　artists　are　disliked；　the　laborer's　　work　does　not　succeed；　the　tradesman　loses　his　money；　and　the　general　his　battle。　And　we　may　add；　‘‘The　criminalist　his　case。''　For　whoever　seeks　the　reason　for　a　lost　case　certainly　will　find　it　in　the　ignorance　of　the　real　fact　and　in　the　incorrect　cordination　of　cause　and　effect。　The　most　difficult　thing　in　such　cordination　is　not　that　it　has　to　be　tested　according　to　the　notion　one　has　for　himself　of　the　chain　of　events；　the　difficulty　lies　in　the　fact　that　the　point　of　view　and　mental　habits　of　the　man　who　is　suspected　of　the　effects　must　be　adopted。　Without　this　the　causal　relations　as　they　are　arrived　at　by　the　other　can　never　be　reached；　or　different　results　most　likely　ensue。

The　frequency　of　mistakes　like　those　just　mentioned　is　well　known。　They　affect　history。　Even　La　Rochefoucauld　was　of　the　opinion　that　the　great　and　splendid　deeds　which　are　presented　by　statesmen　as　the　outcome　of　far…reaching　plans　are；　as　a　rule；　merely　the　result　of　inclination　and　passion。　This　opinion　concerns　the　lawyer's　task　also；　for　the　lawyer　is　almost　always　trying　to　discover　the　moving；　great；　and　unified　plan　of　each　crime；　and　in　order　to　sustain　such　a　notion；　prefers　to　perfect　a　large　and　difficult　theoretic　construction；　rather　than　to　suppose　that　there　never　was　a　plan；　but　that　the　whole　crime　sprang　from　accident；　inclination；　and　sudden　impulse。　The　easiest　victims　in　this　respect　are　the　most　logical　and　systematic　lawyers；　they　merely　presuppose；　‘‘I　would　not　have　done　this''　and　forget　that　the　criminal　was　not　at　all　so　logical　and　systematic；　that　he　did　not　even　work　according　to　plan；　but　simply　followed　straying　impulses。

Moreover；　a　man　may　have　determined　his　causal　connections　correctly；　yet　have　omitted　many　things；　or　finally　have　made　a　voluntary　stop　at　some　point　in　his　work；　or　may　have　carried　the　causal　chain　unnecessarily　far。　This　possibility　has　been　made　especially　clear　by　J。　S。　Mill；　who　showed　that　the　immediately　preceding　condition　is　never　taken　as　cause。　When　we　throw　a　stone　into　the　water　we　call　the　cause　of　its　sinking　its　gravity；　and　not　the　fact　that　it　has　been　thrown　into　the　water。　So　again；　when　a　man　falls　down　stairs　and　breaks　his　foot；　in　the　story　of　the　fall　the　law　of　gravity　is　not　mentioned；　it　is　taken　for　granted。　When　the　matter　is　not　so　clear　as　in　the　preceding　examples；　such　facts　are　often　the　cause　of　important　misunderstandings。　In　the　first　case；　where　the　immediately　preceding　condition　is　_*not_　mentioned；　it　is　the　inaccuracy　of　the　expression　that　is　at　fault；　for　we　see　that　at　least　in　scientific　form；　the　efficient　cause　is　always　the　immedi…　　ately　preceding　condition。　So　the　physician　says；　‘‘The　cause　of　death　was　congestion　of　the　brain　in　consequence　of　pressure　resulting　from　extravasation　of　the　blood。''　And　he　indicates　only　in　the　second　line　that　the　latter　event　resulted　from　a　blow　on　the　head。　In　a　similar　manner　the　physicist　says　that　the　board　was　sprung　as　a　consequence　of　the　uneven　tension　of　the　fibers；　he　adds　only　later　that　this　resulted　from　the　warmth；　which　again　is　the　consequence　of　the　direct　sunlight　that　fell　on　the　board。　Now　the　layman　had　in　both　cases　omitted　the　proximate　causes　and　would　have　said　in　case　1；　‘‘The　man　died　because　he　was　beaten　on　the　head；''　and　in　case　2　‘‘The　board　was　sprung　because　it　lay　in　the　sun。''　We　have；　therefore；　to　agree　to　the　surprising　fact　that　the　layman　skips　more　intermediaries　than　the　professional；　but　only　because　either　he　is　ignorant　of　or　ignores　the　intervening　conditions。　Hence；　he　is　also　in　greater　danger　of　making　a　mistake　through　omission。

Inasmuch　as　the　question　deals　only　with　the　scarcity　of　correct　knowledge　of　proximate　causes；　we　shall　set　aside　the　fact　that　lawyers　themselves　make　such　mistakes；　which　may　be　avoided　only　by　careful　self…training　and　cautious　attention　to　one's　own　thoughts。　But　we　have　at　the　same　time　to　recognize　how　important　the　matter　is　when　we　receive　long　series　of　inferences　from　witnesses　who　give　expression　only　to　the　first　and　the　last　deduction。　If　we　do　not　then　examine　and　investigate　the　intermediary　links　and　their　justification；　we　deserve　to　hear　extravagant　things；　and　what　is　worse；　to　make　them；　as　we　do；　the　foundation　of　further　inference。　And　once　this　is　done　no　man　can　discover　where　the　mistake　lies。

If　again　an　inference　is　omitted　as　self…evident　（cf。　the　case　of　gravity；　in　falling　down　stairs）　the　source　of　error　and　the　difficulty　lies　in　the　fact　that；　on　the　one　hand；　not　everything　is　as　self…evident　as　it　seems；　on　the　other；　that　two　people　rarely　understand　the　same　thing　by　‘‘self…evident；''　so　that　what　is　self…evident　to　one　is　far　from　so　to　the　other。　This　difference　becomes　especially　clear　when　a　lawyer　examines　professional　people　who　can　imagine　offhand　what　is　in　no　sense　self…evident　to　persons　in　other　walks　of　life。　I　might　cite　out　of　my　own　experience；　that　the　physicist　Boltzmann；　one　of　the　foremost　of　living　mathematicians；　was　told　once　upon　a　time　that　his　demonstrations　were　not　sufficiently　detailed　to　be　intelligible　to　his　class　of　non…professionals；　so　that　his　hearers　could　not　follow　him。　As　a　result；　he　carefully　counted　the　simplest　additions　or　interpolations　on　the　blackboard；　but　at　　the　same　time　integrated　them；　etc。；　in　his　head；　a　thing　which　very　few　people　on　earth　can　do。　It　was　simply　an　off…hand　matter　for　this　genius　to　do　that　which　ungenial　mortals　can　not。

This　appears　in　a　small　way　in　every　second　criminal　case。　We　have　only　to　substitute　the　professionals　who　appear　as　witnesses。　Suppose；　e。　g。；　that　a　hunter　is　giving　testimony。　He　will　omit　to　state　a　group　of　correlations；　with　regard　to　things　which　are　involved　in　his　trade；　he　will　reach　his　conclusion　with　a　single　jump。　Then　we　reach　the　fatal　circle　that　the　witness　supposes　that　we　can　follow　him　and　his　deductions；　and　are　able　to　call　his　attention　to　any　significant　error；　while　we；　on　the　other　hand；　depend　on　his　professional　knowledge；　and　agree　to　his　leaping　inferences　and　allow　his　conclusions　to　pass　as　valid　without　knowing　or　being　able　to　test　them。

The　notion　of　‘‘specialist''　or　‘‘professional''　must　be　applied　in　such　instances　not　only　to　especial　proficients　in　some　particular　trade；　but　also　to　such　people　as　have　by　accident　merely；　any　form　of　specialized　knowledge；　e。　g。；　knowledge　of　the　place　in　which　some　case　had　occurred。　People　with　such　knowledge　present　many　a　thing　as　self…evident　that　can　not　be　so　to　people　who　do　not　possess　the　knowledge。　Hence；　peasants　who　are　asked　about　some　road　in　their　own　well　known　country　reply　that　it　is　‘‘straight　ahead　and　impossible　to　miss''　even　when　the　road　may　turn　ten　times；　right　and　left。

Human　estimates　are　reliable　only　when　tested　and　reviewed　at　each　instant；　complicated　deductions　are　so　only　when　deduction　after　deduction　has　been　tested；　each　in　itself；　Lawyers　must；　therefore；　inevitably　follow　the　rule　of　requiring　explication　of　each　step　in　an　inferencesuch　a　requirement　will　at　least　narrow　the　limits　of　error。

The　task　would　be　much　easier　if　we　were　fortunate　enough　to　be　able　to　help　ourselves　with　experiments。　As　Bernard＇1＇　says；　‘‘There　is　an　absolute　determinism　in　the　existential　conditions　of　natural　phenomena；　as　much　in　living　as　in　non…living　bodies。　If　the　condition　of　any　phenomenon　is　recognized　and　fulfilled　the　phenomenon　must　occur　whenever　the　experimenter　desires　it。''　But　such　determination　can　be　made　by　lawyers　in　rare　cases　only；　and　to…day　the　criminalist　who　can　test　experimentally　the　generally　asserted　circumstance　attested　by　witnesses；　accused；　or　experts；

＇1＇　C。　Bernard：　Introduction　　l'Etude　de　la　Med