criminal psychology-第107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！

the　man　stand？）。

Children's　determinations　of　time　are　unreliable。　Yesterday　and　to…day　are　easily　confused　by　small　children；　and　a　considerably　advanced　intelligence　is　necessary　to　distinguish　between　yesterday　and　a　week　ago；　or　even　a　week　and　a　month。　That　we　need；　in　such　cases；　correct　individualization　of　the　witness　is　self…evident。　The　conditions　of　the　child's　bringing…up；　the　things　he　learned　to　know；　are　what　we　must　first　of　all　learn。　If　the　question　in　hand


＇1＇　W。　Preyer：　Die　Seele　des　Kindes：　Leipzig　1890。

　can　fit　into　the　notion　the　child　possesses；　he　will　answer　better　and　more　if　quite　unendowed；　than　if　a　very　clever　child　who　is　foreign　to　the　notions　of　the　defined　situation。　I　should　take　intelligence　only　to　be　of　next　importance　in　such　cases；　and　advise　giving　up　separating　clever　from　stupid　children　in　favor　of　separating　practical　and　unpractical　children。　The　latter　makes　an　essential　difference。　Both　the　children　of　talent　and　stupid　children　may　be　practical　or　unpractical。　If　a　child　is　talented　and　practical　he　will　become　a　useful　member　of　society　who　will　be　at　home　everywhere　and　will　be　able　to　help　himself　under　any　circumstances。　If　a　child　is　talented　and　unpractical；　it　may　grow　up　into　a　professor；　as　is　customarily　expected　of　it。　If　a　child　is　untalented　and　practical；　it　will　properly　fill　a　definite　place；　and　if　it　has　luck　and　‘‘pull''　may　even　attain　high　station　in　life。　If　it　is　untalented　and　unpractical　it　becomes　one　of　those　poor　creatures　who　never　get　anywhere。　For　the　rle　of　witness　the　child's　practicality　is　the　important　thing。　The　practical　child　will　see；　observe；　properly　understand；　and　reproduce　a　group　of　things　that　the　unpractical　child　has　not　even　observed。　Of　course；　it　is　well；　also；　to　have　the　child　talented；　but　I　repeat：　the　least　clever　practical　child　is　worth　more　as　witness　than　the　most　clever　unpractical　child。

What　the　term　‘‘practical''　stands　for　is　difficult　to　say；　but　everybody　knows　it；　and　everybody　has　seen；　who　has　cared　about　children　at　all；　that　there　are　practical　children。


Section　81。　（3）　_Juvenile　Delinquency_。

There　have　never　lacked　authors　who　have　assigned　to　children　a　great　group　of　defects。　Ever　since　Lombroso　it　has　been　the　custom　in　a　certain　circle　to　find　the　worst　crimes　already　foreshadowed　in　children。　If　there　are　congenital　criminals　it　must　follow　that　there　are　criminals　among　children。　It　is　shown　that　the　most　cruel　and　most　unhuman　men；　like　Nero；　Caracalla；　Caligula；　Louis　XI；　Charles　IX；　Louis　XIII；　etc。；　showed　signs　of　great　cruelty；　even　in　earliest　childhood。　Perez　cites　attacks　of　anger　and　rage　in　children；　Moreau；　early　development　of　the　sense　of　vengeance；　Lafontaine；　their　lack　of　pity。　Nasse　also　calls　attention　to　the　cruelty　and　savagery　of　large　numbers　of　children；　traits　shown　in　their　liking　for　horror…stories；　in　the　topsy…turvy　conclusion　of　the　stories　they　tell　themselves；　in　their　cruelty　to　animals。　Broussais＇1＇


＇1＇　‘‘Irritation　et　Folie。''

　says；　‘‘There　is　hardly　a　lad　who　will　not　intentionally　abuse　weaker　boys。　This　is　his　first　impulse。　His　victim's　cries　of　pain　restrain　him　for　a　moment　from　further　maltreatment；　if　the　love　of　bullying　is　not　native　with　him。　But　at　the　first　offered　opportunity　he　again　follows　his　instinctive　impulse。''

Even　the　power　of　training　is　reduced　and　is　expressed　in　the　proverb；　that　children　and　nations　take　note　only　of　their　last　beating。　The　time　about；　and　especially　just　before；　the　development　of　puberty　seems　to　be　an　especially　bad　one；　and　according　to　Voisin＇1＇　and　Friedreich；＇2＇　modern　man　sees　in　this　beginning　of　masculinity　the　cause　of　the　most　extraordinary　and　doubtful　impulses。　Since　Esquirol　invented　the　doctrine　of　monomanias　there　has　grown　up　a　whole　literature；　especially　concerning　pyromania　among　girls　who　are　just　becoming　marriageable；　and　Friedreich　even　asserts　that　all　pubescent　children　suffer　from　pyromania；　while　Grohmann　holds　that　scrofulous　children　are　in　the　habit　of　stealing。

When　this　literature　is　tested　the　conclusion　is　inevitable　that　there　has　been　overbold　generalization。　One　may　easily　see　how。　Of　course　there　are　badly　behaved　children；　and　it　is　no　agreement　with　the　Italian　positivists　to　add；　also；　that　a　large　number　of　criminals　were　good　for　nothing　even　in　their　earliest　youth。　But　we　are　here　concerned　with　the　specific　endowment　of　childhood；　and　it　is　certainly　an　exaggeration　to　set　this　lower　than　that　of　maturity。　If　it　be　asked；　what　influence　nurture　and　training　have　if　children　are　good　without　it；　we　may　answer　at　once；　that　these　have　done　enough　in　having　supplied　a　counterbalance　to　the　depraving　influences　of　life；the　awakening　passions　and　the　environment。

Children　who　are　bad　at　an　early　age　are　easily　noticeable。　They　make　noise　and　trouble　as　thousands　of　well…behaved　children　do　not；　and　a　poor　few　of　such　bad　ones　are　taken　to　be　representative　of　all。　What　is　silent　and　not　significant；　goes　of　itself；　makes　no　impression；　even　though　it　is　incomparably　of　greater　magnitude。　Individual　and　noisy　cases　require　so　much　attention　that　their　character　is　assigned　to　the　whole　class。　Fortune…telling；　dreams；　forewarnings；　and　prophecies　are　similarly　treated。　If　they　do　not　succeed；　they　are　forgotten；　but　if　in　one　case　they　succeed；　they　make　a　great　noise。　They　appear；　therefore；　to　seduce　the　mind


＇1＇　Des　Causes　Marales　et　Physiques　des　Maladies　Mentales。　Paris　1826。

＇2＇　System　der　Gerichtlichen　Psychologie。　Regensburg　1852。

　into　incorrectly　interpreting　them　as　typical。　And　generally；　there　is　a　tendency　to　make　sweeping　statements　about　children。　‘‘If　you　have　understood　this；　you　understand　that　also；''　children　are　often　told；　and　most　of　the　time　unjustly。　The　child　is　treated　like　a　grown　man　to　whom　_*this_　has　occurred　as　often　as　_that_；　and　who　has　intelligence　enough　and　experience　enough　to　apply　_this_　to　_that_　by　way　of　identification。　Consider　an　exaggerated　example。　The　child；　let　us　say；　knows　very　well　that　stealing　is　dishonorable；　sinful；　criminal。　But　it　does　not　know　that　counterfeiting；　treachery；　and　arson　are　forbidden。　These　differences；　however；　may　be　reduced　to　a　hair。　It　knows　that　stealing　is　forbidden；　but　considers　it　permissible　to　‘‘rag''　the　neighbors'　fruit。　It　knows　that　lying　is　a　sin；　but　it　does　not　know　that　certain　lies　become　suddenly　punishable；　according　to　law；　and　are　called　frauds。　When；　therefore；　a　boy　tells　his　uncle　that　father　sent　him　for　money　because　he　does　not　happen　to　have　any　at　home；　and　when　the　little　rascal　spends　the　money　for　sweets；　he　may　perhaps　believe　that　the　lie　is　quite　ugly；　but　that　he　had　done　anything　objectively　punishable；　he　may　be　totally　unaware。　It　is　just　as　difficult　for　the　child　to　become　subjective。　The　child　is　more　of　an　egoist　than　the　adult；　on　the　one　hand；　because　it　is　protected　and　watched　in　many　directions　by　the　adult；　on　the　other；　because；　from　the　nature　of　things；　it　does　not　have　to　care　for　anybody；　and　would　go　ship…wreck　if　it　were　not　itself　cared　for。　The　natural　consequences　are　that　it　does　not　discover　the　limits　between　what　is　permissible；　and　what　is　not　permissible。　As　Kraus　says；＇1＇　‘‘Unripe　youth　shows　a　distinct　quality　in　distinguishing　good　and　evil。　A　child　of　this　age；　that　is　required　to　judge　the　action　or　relations　of　persons；　will　not　keep　one　waiting　for　the　proper　solution；　but　if　the　action　is　brought　into　relation　to　its　selfhood；　to　its　own　personality；　there　is　a　sudden　disingenuity；　a　twisting　of　the　judgment；　an　incapacity　in　the　child　to　set　itself　at　the　objective　point　of　view。''　Hence；　it　is　wrong　to　ask　a　child：　‘‘Didn't　you　know　that　you　should　not　have　done　this　thing？''　The　child　will　answer；　‘‘Yes；　I　knew；''　but　it　does　not　dare　to　add；　‘‘I　knew　that　other　people　ought　not　do　it；　but　I　might。''　It　is　not　necessary　that　the　spoiled；　pampered　pet　should　say　this；　any　child　has　this　prejudiced　attitude。　And　how　shall　it　know　the　limit　between　what　is　permitted　it；　and　what　is　not？　Adults　must　work；　the　child　plays；　the　mother　must　cook；　the　child　comes　to　the


＇1＇　Die　Psychologie　des　Verbrechens。　Tbingen　1884。

　laden　table；　the　mother　must　wash；　the　child　wears　the　clean　clothes；　it　gets　the　titbits；　it　is　protected　against　cold；　it　is　forgiven　many　a　deed　and　many　a　word　not　permitted　the　adult。　Now　all　of　a　sudden　it　is　blamed　because　it　has　gone　on　making　use　of　its　recognized　privileges。　Whoever　remembers　this　artificial；　but　nevertheless　necessary；　egoism　in　children　will　have　to　think　more　kindly　of　many　a　childish　crime。　Moreover；　we　must　not　overlook　the　fact　that　the　child　does　many　things　simply　as　blind　imitation。　More　accurate　observation　of　this　well　known　psychological　fact　will　show　how　extensive　childish　imitation　is。　At　a　certain　limit；　of　course；　liability　is　here　also　present；　but　if　a　child　is　imitating　an　imitable　person；　a　parent；　a　teacher；　etc。；　its　responsibility　is　at　an　end。

All　in　all；　we　may　say　that　nobody　has　brought　any　evidence　to　show　that　children　are　any　worse…behaved　than　adults。　Experience　teaches　th