criminal psychology-第64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！


als　do　not　do　this；　it　is　thinking。''＇1＇　I　might　suggest　that　in　the　first　　place；　various　animals　are　capable　of　something　of　the　sort；　and　in　the　second　place；　that　many　men　are　incapable　of　the　same　thing。　The　lawyer's　greatest　of　all　mistakes　is　always　the　presupposition　that　whoever　has　done　anything　has　also　thought　about　doing　it　and　while　he　was　doing　it。　This　is　especially　the　case　when　we　observe　that　many　people　repeatedly　speak　of　the　same　event　and　drive　us　to　the　opinion　that　there　must　be　some　intelligent　idea　behind　it；but　however　narrow　a　road　may　be；　behind　it　there　may　be　any　number　of　others　in　series。


＇1＇　L。　Geiger：　Der　Ursprung　der　Sprache。　Stuttgart　1869。


We　also　are　bound　to　be　mistaken　if　we　presuppose　the　lack　of　reason　as　a　peculiarity　of　the　uneducated　only；　and　accept　as　well　thought…out　the　statements　of　people　who　possess　academic　training。　But　not　everybody　who　damns　God　is　a　philosopher；　and　neither　do　academic　persons　concern　themselves　unexceptionally　with　thinking。　Concerning　the　failure　of　our　studies　in　the　high…　schools　and　in　the　gymnasia；　more　than　enough　has　been　written；　but　Helmholtz；　in　his　famous　dissertation；　‘‘Concerning　the　Relation　of　the　Natural　Sciences　to　the　Whole　of　Knowledge；''　has　revealed　the　reason　for　the　inadequacy　of　the　material　served　up　by　gymnasia　and　high…schools。　Helmholtz　has　not　said　that　the　university　improves　the　situation　only　in　a　very　small　degree；　but　it　may　be　understood　from　his　words。　‘‘The　pupils　who　pass　from　our　grammar…schools　to　exact　studies　have　two　defects；　1。　A　certain　laxity　in　the　application　of　universally　valid　laws。　The　grammatical　rules　with　which　they　have　been　trained；　are　as　a　matter　of　fact；　buried　under　series　of　exceptions；　the　pupils　hence　are　unaccustomed　to　trust　unconditionally　to　the　certainty　of　a　legitimate　consequence　of　some　fixed　universal　law。　2。　They　are　altogether　too　much　inclined　to　depend　upon　authority　even　where　they　can　judge　for　themselves。''

Even　if　Helmholtz　is　right；　it　is　important　for　the　lawyer　to　recognize　the　distinction　between　the　witness　who　has　the　gymnasium　behind　him　and　the　educated　man　who　has　helped　himself　without　that　institution。　Our　time；　which　has　invented　the　Ph。　D。；　which　wants　to　do　everything　for　the　public　school　and　is　eager　to　cripple　the　classical　training　in　the　gymnasium；　has　wholly　forgotten　that　the　incomparable　value　of　the　latter　does　not　lie　in　the　minimum　of　Latin　and　Greek　which　the　student　has　acquired；　but　in　the　disciplinary　intellectual　drill　contained　in　the　grammar　of　the　ancient　tongues。　It　is　superfluous　to　make　fun　of　the　fact　that　the　technician　writes　on　his　visiting　cards：　Stud。　Eng。　or　Stud。　Mech。　and　can　not　　pronounce　the　words　the　abbreviations　stand　for；　that　he　becomes　Ph。　D。　and　can　not　translate　his　title；these　are　side　issues。　But　it　is　forgotten　that　the　total　examination　in　which　the　public　school　pupil　presents　his　hastily　crammed　Latin　and　Greek；　never　implies　a　careful　training　in　his　most　impressionable　period　of　life。　Hence　the　criminalist　repeatedly　discovers　that　the　capacity　for　trained　thinking　belongs　mainly　to　the　person　who　has　been　drilled　for　eight　years　in　Greek　and　Latin　grammar。　We　criminalists　have　much　experience　in　this　matter。

Helmholtz's　first　point　would；　for　legal　purposes；　require　very　broad　interpretation　of　the　term；　‘‘universally　valid　laws；''　extending　it　also　to　laws　in　the　judicial　sense　of　the　word。　The　assertion　is　frequently　made　that　laws　are　passed　in　the　United　States　in　order　that　they　might　not　be　obeyed；　and　political　regulations　are　obeyed　by　the　public　for；　at　most；　seven　weeks。　Of　course；　the　United　States　is　no　exception；　it　seems　as　if　the　respect　for　law　is　declining　everywhere；　and　if　this　decline　occurs　in　one　field　no　other　is　likely　to　be　free　from　it。　A　certain　subjective　or　egoistic　attitude　is　potent　in　this　regard；　for　people　in　the　main　conceive　the　law　to　be　made　only　for　others；　they　themselves　are　exceptions。　Narrow；　unconditional　adherence　to　general　norms　is　not　modern；　and　this　fact　is　to　be　seen　not　only　in　the　excuses　offered；　but　also　in　the　statements　of　witnesses；　who　expect　others　to　follow　prescriptions　approximately；　and　themselves　hardly　at　all。　This　fact　has　tremendous　influence　on　the　conceptions　and　constructions　of　people；　and　a　failure　to　take　it　into　consideration　means　considerable　error。

Not　less　unimportant　is　the　second　point　raised　in　the　notion　of　‘‘authority。''　To　judge　for　himself　is　everybody's　business；　and　should　be　required　of　everybody。　Even　if　nobody　should　have　the　happy　thought　of　making　use　of　the　better　insight；　the　dependent　person　who　always　wants　to　go　further　will　lead　himself　into　doubtful　situations。　The　three　important　factors；　school；　newspaper；　and　theater；　have　reached　an　extraordinary　degree　of　power。　People　apperceive；　think；　and　feel　as　these　three　teach　them；　and　finally　it　becomes　second　nature　to　follow　this　line　of　least　resistance；　and　to　seek　intellectual　conformity。　We　know　well　enough　what　consequences　this　has　in　law；　and　each　one　of　us　can　tell　how　witnesses　present　us　stories　which　we　believe　to　rest　on　their　own　insight　but　which　show　themselves　finally　to　depend　upon　the　opinion　of　some　other　element。　We　frequently　base　our　constructions　upon　the　remarkable　and　convincing　unanimity　of　such　witnesses　when　upon　　closer　examination　we　might　discover　that　this　unanimity　has　a　single　source。　If　we　make　this　discovery　it　is　fortunate；　for　only　time　and　labor　have　then　been　lost　and　no　mistake　has　been　committed。　But　if　the　discovery　is　not　made；　the　unanimity　remains　an　important；　but　really　an　unreliable　means　of　proof。


Section　47。　（b）　The　Mechanism　of　Thinking。

Since　the　remarkable　dissertation　of　W。　Ostwald；＇1＇　on　Sept。　20；　1905；　we　have　been　standing　at　a　turning　point　which　looks　toward　a　new　view　of　the　world。　We　do　not　know　whether　the　‘‘ignorabimus''　of　some　of　the　scientists　will　hold；　or　whether　we　shall　be　able　to　think　everything　in　terms　of　energy。　We　merely　observe　that　the　supposedly　invincible　principles　of　scientific　materialism　are　shaken。


＇1＇　W。　Ostwald：　Die　berwindung　des　wissenschaftlichen　Materialismus。


Frederick　the　Great；　in　a　letter　to　Voltaire；　says　something　which　suggests　he　was　the　first　to　have　thought　of　the　purely　mechanical　nature　of　thought。　Cabanis　had　said　briefly；　that　the　brain　secretes　thought　as　the　liver　bile。　Tyndall　expressed　this　conception　more　cautiously；　and　demanded　merely　the　confession　that　every　act　of　consciousness　implies　a　definite　molecular　condition　of　the　brain；　while　Bois…Reymond　declared　that　we　could　not　explain　certain　psychical　processes　and　events　by　knowledge　of　the　material　processes　in　the　brain。　‘‘You　shall　make　no　picture　or　comparison；　but　see　as　directly　as　the　nature　of　our　spirit　will　permit；''　Ostwald　tells　us；　and　it　is　well　to　stick　to　this　advice。　We　need　neither　to　cast　aside　the　mechanical　view　of　the　world　nor　to　accept　energism；　neither　of　them　is　required。　But　according　to　the　teachings　of　the　latter；　we　shall　be　enabled　to　recognize　the　meaning　of　natural　law　in　the　determination　of　how　actual　events　are　conditioned　by　possible　ones。　And　thus　we　shall　see　that　the　form　that　all　natural　laws　turn　to　expresses　the　mediation　of　an　invariable；　a　quantity　that　remains　unchangeable　even　when　all　the　other　elements　in　the　formula　of　a　possible　event　alter　within　the　limits　defined　by　the　law。＇2＇


＇2＇　A。　Hfler：　Psychologie。　Vienna　1897。


Every　science　must　provide　its　own　philosophy；　and　it　is　our　duty　to　know　properly　and　to　understand　clearly　how　far　we　may　perceive　connections　between　the　physical　qualities　of　any　one　of　our　witnesses　and　his　psychic　nature。　We　will　draw　no　inferences　ourselves；　but　we　will　take　note　of　what　does　not　explain　itself　and　apply　　to　experts　to　explain　what　we　can　not。　This　is　especially　necessary　where　the　relation　of　the　normal　to　the　abnormal　becomes　a　question。

The　normal　effects　to　be　spoken　of　are　very　numerous；　but　we　shall　consider　only　a　few。　The　first　is　the　connection　of　symbol　and　symbolized。　‘‘The　circumstance　that　the　symbol；　on　its　side　of　the　union　of　the　two；　becomes　perfectly　clear　while　the　symbolized　object　is　rather　confused；　is　explained　by　the　fact　that　the　symbol　recalls　its　object　more　quickly　than　the　object　the　symbol；　e。g。；　the　tool　recalls　its　use　more　quickly　than　the　purpose　its　instrument。　Name　and　word　recall　more　quickly；　reliably；　and　energetically　the　objects　they　stand　for　than　do　the　objects　their　symbols。''＇1＇　This　matter　is　more　important　than　it　looks　at　first　glance；　inasmuch　as　the　particles　of　time　with　which　we　are　dealing　are　greater　than　those　with　which　modern　psychologists　have　to　deal；so　large　indeed；　that　they　may　be　perceived　in　practice。　We　lay　stress　during　the　examination；　when　we　are　in　doubt　about　the　correctness　of　the　expected　answer；　upon　the　promptness　and　rapidity　with　which　it　is　given。　Drawn　out；　tentative；　and　uncertain　answers；　we　take　for　a　sign　that　the　witness　either　is　unable　or　unwilling　to　give　his　replies　honestly。　If；　however；　psychologically　there　are　real　reasons　for　variation　in　the　time　in　which　an　answer　is　given；　reasons　which　do　not　depend　on　its　correctness；　we　must　seek　out　this　correctness。　Suppose　that　we　have　before　us　a　case　in　which　the　name　awakens　more　quickly　and　reliably　the　idea　of　the　person　to　whom　it　belongs　than　conversely。　This　occurs　to　any　one　of　us；　and　often　we　can　not　remember　the　name　of　even　a　close　friend　for　a　greater　or　shorter　period。　But　we　very　rarely　find　that　we　do　not　think　of　the　appearance　of　the　individual　whose　name　we　hear　mentioned。　But　it　would　be　wrong　to　relate　this　phenomenon　to　certain　qualities　which　contradict　it　only　apparently。　E。　g。；　when　I　examine　old　statutes　which　I　myself　have　worked　with　and　review　the　names　of　the　series；　I　recall　that　I　had　something　to　do　with　this　Jones；　Smith；　Black；　or　White；　and　I　recall　what　the　business　was；　but　I　do　not　recall　their　appearance。　The　reason　is；　first　of　all；　the　fact　that　during　the　trial　I　did　not　care　about　the　names　which　served　as　a　means　of　distinguishing　one　from　the　other；　and　they　mi