criminal psychology-第30节
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！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
an unjust sentence is obvious。 But whether the person in question is guilty or not guilty； it is the undeniable duty of the judge to make especial efforts with such persons； for defiance and spite are in most cases the result of embitterment； and this again comes from the disgusting treatment received at the hands of one's fellows。 And it is the judge's duty at least not to increase this guilt if he can not wipe it away。 The only； and apparently the simplest； way of dealing with such people is the patient and earnest discussion of the case； the demonstration that the judge is ready carefully to study all damaging facts； and even a tendency to refer to evidence of innocence in hand； and a not over…energetic discussion of the man's possible guilt。 In most cases this will not be useful at the beginning。 The man must have time to think the thing over； to conceive in the lonely night that it is not altogether the world's plan to ruin him。 Then when he begins to recognize that he will only hurt himself by his spiteful silence if he is again and again examined he will finally be amenable。 Once the ice is broken； even those accused who at the beginning showed only spite and defiance； show themselves the most tractable and honest。 The thing needful above all is patience。
Real rage； unfortunately； is frequent。 The body is carried erect or thrown forward； the limbs become stiff； mouth and teeth closely press together； the voice becomes very loud or dies away or grows hoarse； the forehead is wrinkled and the pupil of the eye contracted； in addition one should count the change of color； the flush or deep pallor。 An opportunity to simulate real rage is rare； and anyway the characteristics are so significant that a mistake in recognition can hardly be made。 Darwin says that the conviction of one's own guilt is from time to time expressed through a sparkling of the eyes； and through an undefinable affectation。 The last is well known to every penologist and explicable in general psychological terms。 Whoever knows himself to be guiltless behaves according to his condition； naturally and without constraint： hence the notion that nave people are such as represent matters as they are。 They do not find anything suspicious in them because they do not know about suspicious matters。 But persons who know themselves guilty and try not to show it； must attain their end through artifice and imitation； and when this is not well done the affectation is obvious。
There is also something in the guilty sparkle of the eye。 The sparkle in the eyes of beauty； the glance of joy； of enthusiasm； of rapture； is not so poetical as it seems； inasmuch as it is no more than intensified secretion of tears。 The latter gets its increase through nervous excitation； so that the guilty sparkle should also be of the same nature。 This may be considered as in some degree a flow of tears in its first stages。
An important gesture is that of resignation； which expresses itself especially as folding the hands in one's lap。 This is one of the most obvious gestures； for ‘‘folding the hands in the lap'' is proverbial and means there is no more to be done。 The gesture signifies； therefore； ‘‘I'm not going to do any more； I can't； I won't。'' Hence it must be granted that the condition of resignation and its gesture can have no significance for our own important problem； the problem of guilt； inasmuch as the innocent as well as the guilty may become resigned； or may reach the limit at which he permits everything to pass without his interference。 In the essence and expression of resignation there is the abandonment of everything or of some particular thing； and in court； what is abandoned is the hope to show innocence； and as the latter may be real as well as merely pleaded； this gesture is a definite sign in certain cases。 It is to be noted among the relations and friends of a defendant who； having done everything to save him； recognize that the evidence of guilt is irrefutable。 It is again to be noticed among courageous lawyers who； having exerted all their art to save their clients； perceive the failure of their efforts。 And finally； the defendants show it； who have clearly recognized the danger of their case。 I believe that it is not an empirical accident that the gesture of resignation is made regularly by innocent persons。 The guilty man who finds himself caught catches at his head perhaps； looks toward heaven gritting his teeth； rages against himself； or sinks into a dull apathy； but the essential in resignation and all its accompanying movements is foreign to him。 Only that conforms to the idea of resignation which indicates a surrender； the cession of some value that one has a claim onif a man has no claim to any given thing he can not resign it。 In the same way； a person without right to guiltlessness and recognition； will instinctively not surrender it with the emotion of resignation； but at most with despair or anger or rage。 And it is for this reason that the guilty do not exhibit gestures of resignation。
The contraction of the brow occurs in other cases besides those mentioned。 Before all it occurs when anything is dealt with intensively； increasing with the increase of the difficulty of the subject。 The aboriginal source of this gesture lies in the fact that intensive activities involve the need of acuter vision； and this is in some degree acquired by the contraction of the skin of the forehead above the eyebrows； for vision is clarified in this way。 Intensive consideration on the part of a defendant or a witness； and the establishment of its reality or simulation； are significant in determining whether he himself believes the truth of what is about to be explained。 Let us suppose that the issue involves proving an alibi on a certain definite； rather remote day； and the defendant is required to think over his whereabouts on that day。 If he is in earnest with regard to the establishment of his alibi； i。 e。 if he really was not there and did not do the thing； it will be important for him to remember the day in question and to be able to name the witnesses of his whereabouts then。 Hence he will think intensively。 But if he has claimed an alibi dishonestly； as is frequent with criminals； in order to make people conclude that nobody has the right to demand where and for how long a time he was on such and such a day； then there is no need of thinking closely about something that has not happened。 He exhibits in such cases a kind of thoughtfulness； which is not； however； earnest and profound： and these two adjectives describe _*real_ consideration。 The same observations are to be made in regard to dishonest witnesses who； when pressed to think hard； only simulate doing so。 One is compelled at the very least to look closely after the witness who simply imitates intensive thinking without showing the signs proper to it。 The suspicion of false testimony is then justifiable。
A rather different matter is that blank expression of the eyes which only shows that its possessor is completely lost in his thoughts this has nothing to do with sharp recollection and demands above all things being let alone or the belief of being so。 In this case no distinguishing gestures are made； though the forehead； mouth or chin may be handled； only； however； when embarrassment occurs i。 e。 when the man observes that he is being watched； or when he discovers that he has forgotten the presence of other people。 It is supposed that this does not occur in court； but it does happen not infrequently when； for example； the judge； after some long discussion with the accused； is about to dictate what has been said。 If this takes rather a long time； it may chance that the witness is no longer listening but is staring vacantly into the distance。 He is then reviewing his whole life or the development and consequences of his deed。 He is absorbed in a so…called intuitive thought； in the reproduction of events。 Intensive consideration requires the combination of particulars and the making of inferences； hence the form of thinking we have just been speaking of is merely spiritual sightseeing。 It is when this takes place that confessions are most easy to get； if only the judge keeps his eyes properly open。
That contraction of the brow signifies a condition of disgust is well known； but there is yet； as I believe； a still other use of this contractioni。 e。 its combination with a smile； indicating disbelief。 How this union occurred seems comparatively undiscoverable perhaps it results from the combination of the smile of denial with the frown of sharp observation。 But the gesture is； in any event； reliable； and may not easily stand for anything but disbelief and doubt。 Hence it is always a mistake to believe that anybody who makes that expression believes what he has heard。 If you test it experimentally you will find that when you make it you say involuntarily to yourself： ‘‘Well now； that can't be true；'' or ‘‘Look here； that's a whopper！'' or something like that。 The expression occurs most frequently in confronting witnesses with defendants and especially witnesses with each other。
The close relation of the contraction of the brow with its early stage； a slight elevation of the eyebrows； is ma
