criminal psychology-第30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！

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