criminal psychology-第34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！

tness　can　be　determined　only　through　testing　the　single　statements；　the　willingness　and　ability　of　each　witness；　both　in　themselves　and　in　relation　to　all　the　presented　material。

Let　us　take　now　the　third　condition　of　our　suppositious　case；　i。　e。　partial　confession。　It　is　generally　self…evident　that　the　value　of　the　latter　is　to　be　judged　according　to　its　own　nature。　The　confession　must　be　accepted　as　a　means　of　proof；　not　as　proof；　and　this　demands　that　it　shall　be　consistent　with　the　rest　of　the　evidence；　for　in　that　way　only　can　it　become　proof。　But　it　is　most　essential　that　the　confession　shall　be　internally　tested；　i。　e。　examined　for　logical　and　psychological　consistency。　This　procedure　is　especially　necessary　with　regard　to　certain　definite　confessions。

（a）　Confessions　given　without　motive。

（b）　Partial　confessions。

（c）　Confessions　implying　the　guilt　of　another。

（a）　Logic　is；　according　to　Schiel＇1＇　the　science　of　evidencenot　of　finding　evidence　but　of　rendering　evidence　evidential。　This　is　particularly　true　with　regard　to　confessions；　if　we　substitute　psychology　for　logic。　It　is　generally　true　that　many　propositions　hold　so　long　only　as　they　are　not　doubted；　and　such　is　the　case　with　many　confessions。　The　crime　is　confessed；　he　who　confesses　to　it　is　always　a　criminal；　and　no　man　doubts　it；　and　so　the　confession

＇1＇　J。　Schiel：　Die　Methode　der　Induktiven　Forschung。　Braunschweig　1865。

　stands。　But　as　soon　as　doubt；　justified　or　unjustified；　occurs；　the　question　takes　quite　a　different　form。　The　confession　has　first　served　as　proof；　but　now　psychological　examination　alone　will　show　whether　it　can　continue　to　serve　as　proof。

The　most　certain　foundation　for　the　truth　of　confession　in　any　case　is　the　establishment　of　a　clear　motive　for　itand　that　is　rarely　present。　Of　course　the　motive　is　not　always　absent　because　we　do　not　immediately　recognize　it；　but　it　is　not　enough　to　suppose　that　the　confession　does　not　occur　without　a　reason。　That　supposition　would　be　approximately　true；　but　it　need　not　be　true。　If　a　confession　is　to　serve　evidentially　the　motive　_*must_　be　clear　and　indubitable。　Proof　of　its　mere　existence　is　insufficient；　we　must　understand　the　confession　in　terms　of　all　the　factors　that　caused　it。　The　process　of　discovering　these　factors　is　purely　logical　and　generally　established　indirectly　by　means　of　an　apagogue。　This　is　essentially　the　proof　by　negation；　but　it　may　serve　in　connection　with　a　disjunctive　judgment　which　combines　possible　alternatives　as　a　means　of　confirmation。　We　are；　then；　to　bring　together　all　conceivable　motives　and　study　the　confession　with　regard　to　them。　If　all；　or　most　of　them；　are　shown　to　be　impossible　or　insufficient；　we　have　left　only　the　judgment　of　one　or　more　conclusions；　and　with　this　we　have　an　essentially　psychological　problem。　Such　a　problem　is　seldom　simple　and　easy；　and　as　there　is　no　possibility　of　contradiction；　the　danger　is　nowhere　so　great　of　making　light　of　the　matter。　‘‘What　is　reasserted　is　half　proved。''　That　is　a　comfortable　assertion；　and　leads　to　considerable　incorrectness。　A　confession　is　only　established　in　truth　when　it　is　construed　psychologically；　when　the　whole　inner　life　of　the　confessor　and　his　external　conditions　are　brought　into　relation　with　it；　and　the　remaining　motives　established　as　at　least　possible。　And　this　must　be　done　to　avoid　the　reproach　of　having　condemned　some　confessor　without　evidence；　for　a　confession　having　no　motive　may　be　untrue；　and　therefore　not　evidential。

（b）　_Partial　confessions_　are　difficult；　not　only　because　they　make　it　harder　to　prove　the　evidence　for　what　is　not　confessed；　but　also　because　what　is　confessed　appears　doubtful　in　the　light　of　what　is　not。　Even　in　the　simplest　cases　where　the　reason　for　confession　and　silence　seems　to　be　clear；　mistakes　are　possible。　If；　for　example；　a　thief　confesses　to　having　stolen　only　what　has　been　found　in　his　possession　but　denies　the　rest；　it　is　fairly　probable　that　he　hopes　some　gain　from　the　evidence　in　which　there　appears　to　be　no　proof　　of　his　having　stolen　what　has　not　been　found　upon　him。　But　though　this　is　generally　the　case；　it　might　occur　that　the　thief　wants　to　assume　the　guilt　of　another　person；　and　hence　naturally　can　confess　only　to　what　he　is　accused　of；　inasmuch　as　he　either　has　insufficient　or　no　evidence　whatever　of　his　guilt　for　the　rest　of　the　crime。

Another　fairly　clear　reason　for　partial　confession；　is　shown　in　the　confession　to　a　certain　degree　of　malicious　intent；　as　the　denial　of　the　intent　to　kill。　If　this　is　made　by　a　person　who　may　be　supposed　to　know　the　legal　situation；　either　because　of　earlier　experience　or　for　other　reasons；　there　is　sufficient　justification　for　doubting　the　honesty　of　his　confession。　Most　of　such　cases　belong　to　the　numerous　class　in　which　the　defendant　confesses　to　a　series　of　facts　or　a　number　of　things；　and　denies　a　few　of　them　without　any　apparent　reason；　he　may　confess　to　a　dozen　objects　used　in　an　assault　and　simply　refuse　to　discuss　two　probably　quite　insignificant　ones。　If　such　a　case　comes　up　for　judgment　to　the　full　bench；　half　the　judges　say　that　since　he　has　stolen　twelve　he　must　have　taken　the　other　two；　and　the　other　half　say　that　since　he　has　confessed　to　twelve　he　would　have　confessed　to　the　other　two　if　he　had　taken　them。　Generally　speaking；　both　sides　are　right；　one　inference　is　as　justified　as　the　other。　As　a　rule；　such　cases　do　not　repay　a　great　deal　of　troublesome　examination；　inasmuch　as　the　question　of　A's　having　stolen　twelve　or　fourteen　objects　can　little　affect　either　his　guilt　or　his　sentence。　But　it　is　to　be　remembered　that　it　is　never　indifferent　whether　a　man　pleads　guilty　or　not　guilty；　and　later　on；　especially　in　another　case；　it　may　be　quite　the　reverse　of　indifferent　whether　a　man　is　condemned　because　of　a　matter　indifferent　to…day。　Suppose　that　the　denied　theft　was　of　a　worthless　but　characteristic　thing；　e。　g。　an　old　prayer…book。　If　now　the　thief　is　again　suspected　of　a　robbery　which　he　denies　and　the　theft　is　again　that　of　an　old　prayerbook；　then　it　is　not　indifferent　as　a　matter　of　proof　whether　the　man　was　condemned　for　stealing　a　prayer…book　or　not。　If　he　was　so　condemned；　there　will　already　be　remarks　about；　‘‘a　certain　passion　for　old　prayer…books；''　and　the　man　will　be　suspected　of　the　second　theft。

In　regard　to　the　possession　of　stolen　goods；　such　a　sentence　may　have　similar　significance。　I　recall　a　case　in　which　several　people　were　sentenced　for　the　theft　of　a　so…called　fokos　（a　Hungarian　cane　with　a　head　like　an　ax）。　Later　a　fokos　was　used　in　murder　in　the　same　region　and　the　first　suspicion　of　the　crime　was　attached　to　the　thief；　who　might；　because　of　his　early　crime；　have　been　in　possession　　of　a　fokos。　Now　suppose　that　the　man　had　confessed　to　theft　of　everything　but　the　fokos；　and　that　he　had　been　condemned　on　the　basis　of　the　confession；　the　fact　would　be　of　far…reaching　significance　in　the　present　case。　Of　course　it　is　not　intended　that　the　old　case　is　to　be　tried　again　before　the　new。　That　would　be　a　difficult　job　after　the　lapse　of　some　time；　and　in　addition；　would　be　of　little　use；　for　everybody　recalls　the　old　judgment　anyway　and　supposes　that　the　circumstances　must　have　been　such　as　to　show　the　man　guilty。　If　a　man　is　once　sentenced　for　something　he　has　not　confessed　to；　the　stigma　remains　no　matter　how　the　facts　may　be　against　it。

Experience　has　shown　that　the　victims　of　theft　count　everything　stolen　that　they　do　not　discover　at　the　first　glance。　And　it　might　have　been　lost　long　before　the　theft；　or　have　been　stolen　at　an　earlier　or　a　later　time。　For　this　reason　it　often　happens　that　servants；　and　even　the　children　of　the　house　or　other　frequenters；　take　the　robbery　as　an　opportunity　for　explaining　the　disappearance　of　things　they　are　responsible　for　or　steal　afresh　and　blame　it　upon　‘‘the　thief。''　The　quantity　stolen　is　generally　exaggerated；　moreover；　in　order　to　excite　universal　sympathy　and　perhaps　to　invoke　help。　In　general；　we　must　hold　that　there　is　no　psychological　reason　that　a　confessor　should　deny　anything　the　confession　of　which　can　bring　him　no　additional　harm。　The　last　point　must　be　carefully　treated；　for　it　requires　taking　the　attitude　of　the　accused　and　not　of　the　examiner。　It　is　the　former's　information　and　view…point　that　must　be　studied；　and　it　often　contains　the　most　perverted　view…points；　e。　g。；　one　man　denies　out　of　mere　obstinacy　because　he　believes　that　his　guilt　is　increased　by　this　or　that　fact。　The　proposition：　who　has　stolen　one　thing；　has　also　stolen　the　rest；　has　slight　justification。

（c）　If　a　denying　fellow…criminal　is　accused　by　a　confession；　the　interpretation　of　the　latter　becomes　difficult。　First　of　all；　the　pure　kernel　of　the　confession　must　be　brought　to　light；　and　everything　set　aside　that　might　serve　to　free　the　confessor　and　involve　the　other　in　guilt。　This　portion　of　the　work　is　comparatively　the　easiest；　inasmuch　as　it　depends　upon　the　circumstances　of　the　crime。　It　is　more　difficult　to　determine　what　degree　of　crime　the　confessor　attached　to　himself　by　accusing　also　the　other　man；　because　clearness　can　be　reached　in　such　a　case　only　by　working　out　the　situation　from　beginning　to　end　in　two　direc