criminal psychology-第52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！


it　and　the　impulse　is　strong　enough；　be　convinced　that　he　has　seen　his　assaulter　and　the　manner　of　the　assault。　Sometimes　people　who　are　shot　at　will　claim　to　have　seen　the　flight　of　the　ball。　And　so　again　they　will　have　seen　in　a　dark　night　a　comparatively　distant　wagon；　although　they　have　only　heard　the　noise　it　made　and　felt　the　vibration。　It　is　fortunate　that；　as　a　rule；　such　people　try　to　be　just　in　answering　to　questions　which　concern　this　substitution　of　one　sense…perception　for　another。　And　such　questions　ought　to　be　urgently　put。　That　a　false　testimony　can　cause　significant　errors　is　as　obvious　as　the　fact　　that　such　substitutions　are　most　frequent　with　nervous　and　imaginative　persons。

Still　more　significant　is　that　characteristic　phenomenon；　to　us　of　considerable　importance；　which　might　be　called　retrospective　illumination　of　perception。　It　consists　in　the　appearance　of　a　sense…　perception　under　conditions　of　some　noticeable　interruption；　when　the　stimulus　does　not；　as　a　rule；　give　rise　to　that　perception。　I　cite　a　simple　example　in　which　I　first　observed　this　fact。　Since　I　was　a　child　there　had　been　in　my　bed…room　a　clock；　the　loud　ticking　of　which　habit　of　many　years　prevented　my　hearing。　Once；　as　I　lay　awake　in　bed；　I　heard　it　tick　suddenly　three　times；　then　fall　silent　and　stop。　The　occurrence　interested　me；　I　quickly　got　a　light　and　examined　the　clock　closely。　The　pendulum　still　swung；　but　without　a　sound；　the　time　was　right。　I　inferred　that　the　clock　must　have　stopped　going　just　a　few　minutes　before。　And　I　soon　found　out　why：　the　clock　is　not　encased　and　the　weight　of　the　pendulum　hangs　free。　Now　under　the　clock　there　always　stood　a　chair　which　this　time　had　been　so　placed　as　to　be　inclined　further　backward。　The　weight　followed　that　inclination　and　so　the　silence　came　about。

I　immediately　made　an　experiment。　I　set　the　clock　going　again；　and　again　held　the　weight　back。　The　last　beats　of　the　pendulum　were　neither　quicker　nor　slower；　nor　louder　or　softer　than　any　others；　before　the　sudden　stoppage　of　the　clock。　I　believe　the　explanation　to　be　as　follows：　As　customary　noises　especially　are　unheard；　I　did　not　hear　the　pendulum　of　the　clock。　But　its　sudden　stopping　disturbed　the　balance　of　sound　which　had　been　dominating　the　room。　This　called　attention　to　the　cause　of　the　disturbance；　i。　e。；　the　ticking　which　had　ceased；　and　hence　perception　was　intensified　_*backwards_　and　I　heard　the　last　ticks；　which　I　had　not　perceived　before；　one　after　another。　The　latent　stimulus　caused　by　the　ticking　worked　backward。　My　attention　was　naturally　awakened　only　_*after_　the　last　tick；　but　my　perception　was　consecutive。

I　soon　heard　of　another　case；　this　time；　in　court。　There　was　a　shooting　in　some　house　and　an　old　peasant　woman；　who　was　busy　sewing　in　the　room；　asserted　that　she　had　just　before　the　shooting　heard　a　_*few_　steps　in　the　direction　from　which　the　shot　must　have　come。　Nobody　would　agree　that　there　was　any　reason　for　supposing　that　the　person　in　question　should　have　made　his　final　steps　more　noisily　than　his　preceding　ones。　But　I　am　convinced　that　the　witness　told　the　truth。　The　steps　of　the　new　arrival　were　perceived　subconsciously；　the　further　disturbance　of　the　perception　hindered　　her　occupation　and　finally；　when　she　was　frightened　by　the　shot；　the　upper　levels　of　consciousness　were　illuminated　and　the　noises　which　had　already　reached　the　subconsciousness　passed　over　the　threshold　and　were　consciously　perceived。

I　learned　from　an　especially　significant　case；　how　the　same　thing　could　happen　with　regard　to　vision。　A　child　was　run　over　and　killed　by　a　careless　coachman。　A　pensioned　officer　saw　this　through　the　window。　His　description　was　quite　characteristic。　It　was　the　anniversary　of　a　certain　battle。　The　old　gentleman；　who　stood　by　the　window　thinking　about　it　and　about　his　long　dead　comrades；　was　looking　blankly　out　into　the　street。　The　horrible　cry　of　the　unhappy　child　woke　him　up　and　he　really　began　to　see。　Then　he　observed　that　he　had　in　truth　seen　everything　that　had　happened　_*before_　the　child　was　knocked　overi。　e。；　for　some　reason　the　coachman　had　turned　around；　turning　the　horses　in　such　a　way　at　the　same　time　that　the　latter　jumped　sidewise　upon　the　frightened　child；　and　hence　the　accident。　The　general　expressed　himself　correctly　in　this　fashion：　‘‘I　saw　it　all；　but　I　did　not　perceive　and　know　that　I　saw　it　until　_*after_　the　scream　of　the　child。''　He　offered　also　in　proof　of　the　correctness　of　his　testimony；　that　he；　an　old　cavalry　officer；　would　have　had　to　see　the　approaching　misfortune　if　he　had　consciously　seen　the　moving　of　the　coachman；　and　then　he　would　have　had　to　be　frightened。　But　he　knew　definitely　that　he　was　frightened　only　when　the　child　cried　outhe　could　not；　therefore；　have　consciously　perceived　the　preceding　event。　His　story　was　confirmed　by　other　witnesses。

This　psychological　process　is　of　significance　in　criminal　trials；　inasmuch　as　many　actionable　cases　depend　upon　sudden　and　unexpected　events；　where　retrospective　illumination　may　frequently　come　in。　In　such　cases　it　is　most　important　to　determine　what　actually　has　been　perceived；　and　it　is　never　indifferent　whether　we　take　the　testimony　in　question　as　true　or　not。

With　regard　to　the　senses　of　criminals；　Lombroso　and　Ottolenghi　have　asserted　that　they　are　duller　than　those　of　ordinary　people。　The　assertion　is　based　on　a　collection　made　by　Lombroso　of　instances　of　the　great　indifference　of　criminals　to　pain。　But　he　has　overlooked　the　fact　that　the　reason　is　quite　another　thing。　Barbarous　living　and　barbarous　morals　are　especially　dulling；　so　that　indifference　to　pain　is　a　characteristic　of　all　barbarous　nations　and　characters。　Inasmuch　as　there　are　many　criminals　among　barbarous　people；　barbarity；　criminality　and　indifference　to　pain　come　together　in　a　　large　number　of　cases。　But　there　is　nothing　remarkable　in　this；　and　a　direct　relation　between　crime　and　dullness　of　the　senses　can　not　be　demonstrated。


（b）　The　Sense　of　Sight。

Section　37。　（I）　_General　Considerations_。


Just　as　the　sense　of　sight　is　the　most　dignified　of　all　our　senses；　it　is　also　the　most　important　in　the　criminal　court；　for　most　witnesses　testify　as　to　what　they　have　seen。　If　we　compare　sight　with　the　hearing；　which　is　next　in　the　order　of　importance；　we　discover　the　well…known　fact　that　what　is　seen　is　much　more　certain　and　trustworthy　than　what　is　heard。　‘‘It　is　better　to　see　once　than　to　hear　ten　times；''　says　the　universally…valid　old　maxim。　No　exposition；　no　description；　no　complication　which　the　data　of　other　senses　offer；　can　present　half　as　much　as　even　a　fleeting　glance。　Hence　too；　no　sense　can　offer　us　such　surprises　as　the　sense　of　sight。　If　I　imagine　the　thunder　of　Niagara；　the　voice　of　Lucca；　the　explosion　of　a　thousand　cartridges；　etc。；　or　anything　else　that　I　have　not　heard；　my　imagination　is　certainly　incorrect；　but　it　will　differ　from　reality　only　in　degree。　It　is　quite　different　with　visual　imagination。　We　need　not　adduce　examples　of　magnificence　like　the　appearance　of　the　pyramids；　a　tropical　light；　of　a　famous　work　of　art；　a　storm　at　sea；　etc。　The　most　insignificant　thing　ever　seen　but　variously　pictured　in　imagination　will　be　greeted　at　first　sight　with　the　words：　‘‘But　I　imagined　it　quite　different！''　Hence　the　tremendous　importance　of　every　local　and　material　characteristic　which　the　criminal　court　deals　with。　Every　one　of　us　knows　how　differently　he　has；　as　a　rule；　imagined　the　place　of　the　crime　to　be；　how　difficult　it　is　to　arrive　at　an　understanding　with　the　witness　concerning　some　unseen；　local　characteristic；　and　how　many　mistakes　false　images　of　the　unseen　have　caused。　Whenever　I　ciceroned　anybody　through　the　Graz　Criminal　Museum；　I　was　continually　assailed　with　‘‘Does　this　or　that　look　so？　But　I　thought　it　looked　quite　different！''　And　the　things　which　evoke　these　exclamations　are　such　as　the　astonished　visitors　have　spoken　and　written　about　hundreds　of　times　and　often　passed　judgments　upon。　The　same　situation　occurs　when　witnesses　narrate　some　observation。　When　the　question　involves　the　sense　of　hearing　some　misunderstanding　may　be　popularly　assumed。　But　the　people　know　little　of　optical　illusions　and　false　visual　perceptions；　though　they　are　aware　that　incorrect　auditions　are　frequent　matters　of　fact。　Moreover；　to　the　heard　object　　a　large　number　of　more　or　less　certain　precautionary　judgments　are　attached。　If　anybody；　e。　g。；　has　_*heard_　a　shot；　stealthy　footsteps；　crackling　flames；　we　take　his　experience　always　to　be　_*approximate_。　We　do　not　do　so　when　he　assures　us　he　has　_*seen_　these　things　or　their　causes。　Then　we　take　thembarring　certain　mistakes　in　observation；to　be　indubitable　perceptions　in　which　misunderstanding　is　impossible。

In　this；　again；　is　the　basis　for　the　distrust　with　which　we　meet　testimony　concerning　hearsay。　For　we　feel　uncertain　in　the　mere　absence　of　the　person　whose　conversation　is　reported；　since　his　value　can　not　be　determined。　But　a　part　of　the　mistrust　lies　in　the　fact　that　it　is　not　vision　but　the　perennially　half…doubted　hearing　that　is　in　issue。　Lies　are　assigned　mainly　to　words；　but　there　are　lies　which　are　visual　（deceptions；　maskings；　illusions；　etc。）。　Visual　lies　are；　however；　a　diminishing　minority　in　comparison　with　the　lies　that　are　heard。

The　certainty　of　the　correctness　of　vision　lies　in　its　being　tested　with　the　sense　of　touch；i。　e。　in　the　adaptation　of　our　bodily　sense　to　otherwise　existing　things。　As　Helmholtz　says；　‘‘The　agreement　between　our　visual　perceptions　and　the　external　world；　rests；　at　least　in　the　most　important　matters；　on　the　same　ground　that　all　our　knowledge　of　the　actual　world　rests　on；　upon　the　experience　and　the　lasting　test　of　their　correctness　by　means　of　experiments；　i。　e。；　of　the　movements　of　our　bodies。''　This　would　almost　make　it　seem　that　the　supreme　judge　among　the　senses　is　the　touch。　But　that　is　not　intended；　we　know　well　enough　to　what　illusions　we　are　subject　if　we　trust　the　sense　of　touch　alone。　At　the　same　time　we　must　suppose　that　the　question　here　is　one　of　the　nature　of　the　body；　and　this　can　be　measured　only　by　something　similar；　i。e。；　by　our　own　physical　characteristics；　but　always　under　the　control　of　some　ot