criminal psychology-第6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！



I　can　not　here　say　anything　further　to　show　that　this　is　the　sole　correct　method　of　establishing　the　necessary　principles　of　our　science。　The　aim　is　only　to　test　the　practicality　of　this　method　in　the　routine　of　a　criminal　case；　and　to　see　if　it　is　not；　indeed；　the　only　one　by　which　to　attain　complete　and　indubitable　results。　If　it　is；　it　must　_*be　of　use_　not　only　during　the　whole　trialnot　only　in　the　testing　of　collected　evidence；　but　also　in　the　testing　of　every　individual　portion　thereof；　analyzed　into　its　component　elements。

Let　us　first　consider　the　whole　trial。

The　_*effect_　is　here　the　evidence　of　A's　guilt。　The　complex　conditions　for　its　establishment　are　the　collective　instruments　in　getting　evidence；　the　individual　conditions　are　to　be　established　by　means　of　the　individual　sources　of　evidencetestimony　of　witnesses；　examination　of　the　premises；　obduction；　protocol；　etc。

_The　constantification　of　conditions_　now　consists　in　standardizing　the　present　instance；　thus：　Whenever　similar　circumstances　are　given；　i。　e。：　the　same　instruments　of　evidence　are　present；　the　evidence　of　guilt　is　established。　Now　the　accompanying　changes　with　regard　to　the　effect；　i。　e。：　proof　of　guilt　through　evidence；　have　to

＇1＇　Erdmann　ber　die　Dummheit。　1886。

＇2＇　Ebbinghaus：　ber　das　Gedchtniss。　Leipzig　1885。

　be　testedtherefore　the　individual　conditionsi。e。：　the　individual　sources　of　evidence　have　to　be　established　and　their　values　to　be　determined　and　_*varied_。　Finally；　the　accompanying　change　in　effect　（conviction　by　evidence）　is　to　be　tested。　The　last　procedure　requires　discussion；　the　rest　is　self　evident。　In　our　business　isolation　is　comparatively　easy；　inasmuch　as　any　individual　statement；　any　visual　impression；　any　effect；　etc。；　may　be　abstracted　without　difficulty。　Much　harder　is　the　determination　of　its　value。　If；　however；　we　clearly　recognize　that　it　is　necessary　to　express　the　exact　value　of　each　particular　source　of　evidence；　and　that　the　task　is　only　to　determine　comparative　valuation；　the　possibility　of　such　a　thing；　in　at　least　a　sufficiently　close　degree　of　certainty；　must　be　granted。　The　valuation　must　be　made　in　respect　of　two　things（1）　its　_*reliability_　（subjective　and　relative）；　（2）　its　_*significance_　（objective　and　absolute）。　On　the　one　hand；　the　value　of　the　evidence　itself　must　be　tested　according　to　the　appraisement　of　the　person　who　presents　it　and　of　the　conditions　under　which　he　is　important；　on　the　other；　what　influence　evidence　accepted　as　reliable　can　exercise　upon　the　_*effect_；　considered　in　and　for　itself。　So　then；　when　a　testimony　is　being　considered；　it　must　first　be　determined　whether　the　witness　was　able　and　willing　to　speak　the　truth；　and　further；　what　the　importance　of　the　testimony　may　be　in　terms　of　the　changes　it　may　cause　in　the　_*organization_　of　the　case。

Of　greatest　importance　and　most　difficult　is　the　variation　of　conditions　and　the　establishment　of　the　changes　thereby　generated；　with　regard　to　the　_*effect_；i。　e。：　the　critical　interpretation　of　the　material　in　hand。　Applied　to　a　case；　the　problem　presents　itself　in　this　wise：　I　consider　each　detail　of　evidence　by　itself　and　cleared　of　all　others；　and　I　vary　it　as　often　as　it　is　objectively　possible　to　do　so。　Thus　I　suppose　that　each　statement　of　the　witness　might　be　a　lie；　entirely　or　in　part；　it　might　be　incorrect　observation；　false　inference；　etc。and　then　I　ask　myself：　Does　the　evidence　of　guilt；　the　establishment　of　an　especial　trial；　now　remain　just？　If　not；　is　it　just　under　other　and　related　possible　circumstances？　Am　I　in　possession　of　these　circumstances？　If　now　the　degree　of　apparent　truth　is　so　far　tested　that　these　variations　may　enter　and　the　accusation　still　remain　just；　the　defendant　is　convicted：　but　only　under　these　circumstances。

The　same　procedure　here　required　for　the　conduct　of　a　complete　trial；　is　to　be　followed　also；　in　miniature；　in　the　production　of　particulars　of　evidence。　Let　us　again　construe　an　instance。　　The　_*effect_　now　is　the　establishment　of　the　objective　correctness　of　some　particular　point　（made　by　statements　of　witnesses；　looks；　etc。）。　The　_*complex　of　conditions_　consists　in　the　collection　of　these　influences　which　might　render　doubtful　the　correctnessi。　e。；　dishonesty　of　witnesses；　defective　examination　of　locality；　unreliability　of　the　object；　ignorance　of　experts；　etc。　It　is　necessary　to　know　clearly　which　of　these　influences　might　be　potent　in　the　case　in　hand；　and　to　what　degree。　The　_*standardization_　consists；　also　this　time；　in　the　comparison　of　the　conditions　of　the　present　case　with　those　of　other　cases。　The　_*variation_；　again；　consists　in　the　abstraction　from　the　evidence　of　those　details　which　might　possibly　be　incorrect；　thus　correcting　it；　from　various　points　of　view；　and　finally；　in　observing　the　_*effect_　as　it　defines　itself　under　this　variety　of　formulation。

This　procedure；　adopted　in　the　preparation　and　judgment　of　each　new　piece　of　evidence；　excludes　error　as　far　as　our　means　conceivably　permit。　Only　one　thing　more　is　needfula　narrow　and　minute　research　into　that　order　of　succession　which　is　of　indispensable　importance　in　every　natural　science。　‘‘Of　all　truths　concerning　natural　phenomena；　those　which　deal　with　the　order　of　succession　are　for　us　the　most　important。　Upon　a　knowledge　of　them　is　grounded　every　intelligent　anticipation　of　the　future''　（J。　S。　Mill）。＇1＇　The　oversight　of　this　doctrine　is　the　largest　cause　of　our　failures。　We　must；　in　the　determination　of　evidence；　cleave　to　it。　Whenever　the　question　of　influence　upon　the　‘‘_*effect_''　is　raised；　the　problem　of　order　is　found　invariably　the　most　important。　Mistakes　and　impossibilities　are　in　the　main　discovered　only　when　the　examination　of　the　order　of　succession　has　been　undertaken。

In　short：　We　have　confined　ourselves　long　enough　to　the　mere　study　of　our　legal　canons。　We　now　set　out　upon　an　exact　consideration　of　their　material。　To　do　this；　obviously　demands　a　retreat　to　the　starting…point　and　a　beginning　we　ought　to　have　made　long　ago；　but　natural　sciences；　on　which　we　model　ourselves；　have　had　to　do　the　identical　thing　and　are　now　at　it　openly　and　honestly。　Ancient　medicine　looked　first　of　all　for　the　universal　panacea　and　boiled　theriac；　contemporary　medicine　dissects；　uses　the　microscope；　and　experiments；　recognizes　no　panacea；　accepts　barely　a　few　specifics。　Modern　medicine　has　seen　the　mistake。　But　we　lawyers　boil　our　theriac　even　nowadays　and　regard　the　most　important　study；　the　study　of　reality；　with　arrogance。

＇1＇　J。　S。　Mill：　System　of　Logic。

　Topic　II。　PSYCHOLOGIC　LESSONS。

Section　3。　（a）　General　Considerations。


Of　the　criminalist's　tasks；　the　most　important　are　those　involving　his　dealings　with　the　other　men　who　determine　his　work；　with　witnesses；　accused；　jurymen；　colleagues；　etc。　These　are　the　most　pregnant　of　consequences。　In　every　case　his　success　depends　on　his　skill；　his　tact；　his　knowledge　of　human　nature；　his　patience；　and　his　propriety　of　manner。　Anybody　who　takes　the　trouble；　may　note　speedily　the　great　differences　in　efficiency　between　those　who　do　and　those　who　do　not　possess　such　qualities。　That　they　are　important　to　witnesses　and　accused　is　undoubted。　But　this　importance　is　manifest　to　still　others。　The　intercourse　between　various　examining　judges　and　experts　is　a　matter　of　daily　observation。　One　judge　puts　the　question　according　to　law　and　expects　to　be　respected。　He　does　not　make　explicit　how　perfectly　indifferent　the　whole　affair　is　to　him；　but　experts　have　sufficient　opportunity　to　take　note　of　that　fact。　The　other　narrates　the　case；　explains　to　the　experts　its　various　particular　possibilities；　finds　out　whether　and　what　further　elucidation　they　demand；　perhaps　inquires　into　the　intended　manner　and　method　of　the　expert　solution　of　the　problem；　informs　himself　of　the　case　by　their　means；　and　manifests　especial　interest　in　the　difficult　and　far　too　much　neglected　work　of　the　experts。　It　may　be　said　that　the　latter　will　do　their　work　in　the　one　case　as　in　the　other；　with　the　same　result。　This　would　be　true　if；　unfortunately；　experts　were　not　also　endowed　with　the　same　imperfections　as　other　mortals；　and　are　thus　far　also　infected　by　interest　or　indifference。　Just　imagine　that　besides　the　examining　magistrate　of　a　great　superior　court；　every　justice　and；　in　addition；　all　the　chiefs　and　officials　manifested　equal　indifference！　Then　even　the　most　devoted　experts　would　grow　cool　and　do　only　what　they　absolutely　had　to。　But　if　all　the　members　of　the　same　court　are　actuated　by　the　same　keen　interest　and　comport　themselves　as　described；　how　different　the　affair　becomes！　It　would　be　impossible　that　even　the　indifferent；　and　perhaps　least　industrious　experts；　should　not　be　carried　out　of　themselves　by　the　general　interest；　should　not　finally　realize　the　importance　of　their　position；　and　do　their　utmost。

The　same　thing　is　true　of　the　president；　the　jurymen　and　their　fellow…judges。　It　is　observable　that　here　and　there　a　presiding　justice　succeeds　in　boring　all　concerned　during　even　criminal　cases　interesting　　in　themselves；　the　incident　drags　on；　and　people　are　interested　only　in　finally　seeing　the　end　of　the　matter。　Other　presiding　justices