criminal psychology-第41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！

　own　work；　we　must　consider　that　the　progress　of　knowledge　consists　in　the　collection　　of　instances；　and　anything　that　might　have　been　normal　in　100　cases；　need　not　in　any　sense　be　so　when　1000　cases　are　in　question。　Yesterday　the　norm　may　have　been　subject　to　no　exception；　to…day　exceptions　are　noted；　and　to…morrow　the　exception　has　become　the　rule。

Hence；　rules　which　have　no　exceptions　grow　progressively　rarer；　and　wherever　a　single　exception　is　discovered　the　rule　can　no　longer　be　held　as　normative。　Thus；　before　New　Holland　was　discovered；　all　swans　were　supposed　to　be　white；　all　mammals　incapable　of　laying　eggs；　now　we　know　that　there　are　black　swans　and　that　the　duck…bill　lays　eggs。　Who　would　have　dared　to　assert　before　the　discovery　of　the　X…ray　that　light　can　penetrate　wood；　and　who；　especially；　has　dared　to　make　generalizations　with　regard　to　the　great　inventions　of　our　time　which　were　not　afterwards　contradicted　by　the　facts？　It　may　be　that　the　time　is　not　too　far　away　in　which　great；　tenable　and　unexceptionable　principles　may　be　posited；　but　the　present　tendency　is　to　beware　of　generalizations；　even　so　far　as　to　regard　it　a　sign　of　scientific　insight　when　the　composition　of　generally　valid　propositions　is　made　with　great　caution。　In　this　regard　the　great　physicians　of　our　time　are　excellent　examples。　They　hold：　‘‘whether　the　phenomenon　A　is　caused　by　B　we　do　not　know；　but　nobody　has　ever　yet　seen　a　case　of　A　in　which　the　precedence　of　B　could　not　be　demonstrated。''　Our　experts　should　take　the　same　attitude　in　most　cases。　It　might　be　more　uncomfortable　for　us；　but　certainly　will　be　safer；　for　if　they　do　not　take　that　attitude　we　are　in　duty　bound　to　presuppose　in　our　conclusions　that　they　have　taken　it。　Only　in　this　wise；　by　protecting　ourselves　against　apparently　exceptionless　general　rules；　can　our　work　be　safely　carried　on。

This　becomes　especially　our　duty　where；　believing　ourselves　to　have　discovered　some　generally　valid　rule；　we　are　compelled　to　draw　conclusions　without　the　assistance　of　experts。　How　often　have　we　depended　upon　our　understanding　and　our　‘‘correct''　a　priori　method　of　inference；　where　that　was　only　experience；and　such　poor　experience！　We　lawyers　have　not　yet　brought　our　science　so　far　as　to　be　able　to　make　use　of　the　experience　of　our　comrades　with　material　they　have　reviewed　and　defined　in　writing。　We　have　bothered　a　great　deal　about　the　exposition　of　some　legal　difficulty；　the　definition　of　some　judicial　concept；　but　we　have　received　little　instruction　or　tradition　concerning　mankind　and　its　passions。　Hence；　each　one　has　to　depend　on　his　own　experience；　and　that　is　supposed　　to　be　considerable　if　it　has　a　score　of　years　to　its　back；　and　is　somewhat　supplemented　by　the　experience；　of　others。　In　this　regard　there　are　no　indubitable　rules；　everybody　must　tell　himself；　‘‘I　have　perhaps　never　experienced　this　fact；　but　it　may　be　that　a　thousand　other　people　have　seen　it；　and　seen　it　in　a　thousand　different　ways。　How　then；　and　whence；　my　right　to　exclude　every　exception？''

We　must　never　forget　that　every　rule　is　shattered　whenever　any　single　element　of　the　situation　is　unknown；　and　that　happens　very　easily　and　frequently。　Suppose　that　I　did　not　have　full　knowledge　of　the　nature　of　water；　and　walked　on　terra　firma　to　the　edge　of　some　quiet；　calm　pool。　When　now　I　presume：　water　has　a　body；　it　has　a　definite　density；　it　has　consistency；　weight；　etc。；　I　will　also　presume　that　I　may　go　on　walking　over　its　surface　just　as　over　the　surface　of　the　earth；and　that；　simply　because　I　am　ignorant　of　its　fluidity　and　its　specific　gravity。　Liebman＇1＇　summarizes　the　situation　as　follows。　The　causal　nexus；　the　existential　and　objective　relation　between　lightning　and　thunder；　the　firing　of　powder　and　the　explosion；　are　altogether　different　from　the　logical　nexus；　i。　e。　the　mere　conceptual　connection　between　antecedent　and　consequent　in　deduction。　This　constitutes　the　well　known　kernel　of　Humian　skepticism。　We　must　keep　in　mind　clearly　that　we　never　can　know　with　certainty　whether　we　are　in　possession　of　all　the　determining　factors　of　a　phenomenon；　and　hence　we　must　adhere　to　the　only　unexceptionable　rule：　_Be　careful　about　making　rules　that　admit　of　no　exceptions_。　There　is　still　another　objection　to　discuss；　i。　e。　the　mathematical　exception　to　Humian　skepticism。　It　might　be　held　that　inasmuch　as　the　science　of　justice　is　closely　related　in　many　ways　to　mathematics；　it　may　permit　of　propositions　a　priori。　Leibnitz　already　had　said；　‘‘The　mathematicians　count　with　numbers；　the　lawyers　with　ideas；fundamentally　both　do　the　same　thing。''　If　the　relationship　were　really　so　close；　general　skepticism　about　phenomenal　sciences　could　not　be　applied　to　the　legal　disciplines。　But　we　nowadays　deal　not　with　concepts　merely；　and　in　spite　of　all　obstruction；　Leibnitz's　time　has　passed　and　the　realities　of　our　profession；　indeed　its　most　important　object；　the　human　being　itself；　constitute　an　integrating　part　of　our　studies。　And　the　question　may　be　still　further　raised　whether　mathematics　is　really　so　exempt　from　skepticism。　The　work　of　Gauss；　Lobatschewski；　Bolyai；　Lambert；　would　make　the　answer　negative。

＇1＇　Liebman　Zur　Analysis　der　Wirklichkeit。　Strassburg　1888。



Let　us；　for　once；　consider　what　significance　mathematical　postulates　have。　When　Pythagoras　discovered　his　proposition　in　such　a　way　that　he　first　drew　a　right…angled　triangle　and　then　built　a　square　on　each　of　the　sides；　and　finally　measured　the　area　of　each　and　compared　them；　he　must　at　first　have　got　the　notion　that　that　also　might　be　merely　accidental。　If　he　had　made　the　construction　10　or　100　times　with　various　triangles　and　these　had　resulted　always　identically；　only　then　might　he　have　been　justified　in　saying　that　he　had　apparently　discovered　a　theorem。　But　then　his　process　was　just　as　thoroughly　experiential　as　that　of　a　scientist　who　says　that　a　bird　has　never　yet　been　observed　to　give　birth　to　living　young；　and　that　hence　all　birds　lay　eggs。

But　Pythagoras　did　not　proceed　in　this　experiential　manner　in　the　discovery　of　his　theorem。　He　constructed　and　he　counted；　and　when　he　did　that　he　acted　on　postulates：　‘‘If　this　is　a　right…angled　triangle　and　if　that　be　a　square；　so；''and　this　is　just　what　is　done　in　every　science。　The　general　propositions　are；　‘‘If　the　relations　remain　the　same　as　formerly　the　moon　must　rise　to…morrow　at　such　and　such　a　time。''　‘‘If　this　step　in　a　deduction　is　not　false；　if　it　is　well　grounded　at　this　point；　if　it　really　refers　to　x；　it　follows。。。。　''　In　his　procedures　the　criminalist　does　exactly　the　same　thing。　What　he　must　be　skeptical　about　is　the　postulates　from　which　he　starts。


Section　26。　（d）　The　Empirical　Method　in　the　Study　of　Cases。


Properly　to　bound　our　discussion　of　Humian　skepticism；　a　few　words　have　to　be　said　concerning　the　empirical　method　of　the　sciences。　We　will　call　those　laws　purely　empirical　which；　in　the　study　of　nature；　yield　regularities　that　are　demonstrated　by　observation　and　experiment；　but　upon　which　little　or　no　reliance　is　placed　with　regard　to　cases　which　differ　considerably　from　the　observed。　The　latter　is　done　because　no　reason　is　seen　for　the　existence　of　such　laws。　The　empirical　rule　is；　therefore；　no　final　law；　but　is　capable　of　explaining；　especially　when　true；　e。　g。；　the　succession　of　a　certain　condition　of　weather　from　certain　meteorological　signs；　the　improvement　of　species　through　crossing；　the　fact　that　some　alloys　are　harder　than　their　components；　and　so　on。　Or；　to　choose　examples　from　our　own　field；　jurisprudence　may　assert　as　empirical　law　that　a　murderer　is　a　criminal　who　has　gone　unpunished　for　his　earlier　crimes；　that　all　gamblers　show　such　significant　resemblances；　that　the　criminal　who　has　soiled　his　hands　with　blood　in　some　violent　　crime　was　accustomed　to　wipe　them　on　the　underside　of　a　table；　that　the　slyest　person　generally　perpetrates　some　gross　stupidity　after　committing　a　serious　crime；　and　so　renders　discovery　simpler；　that　lust　and　cruelty　have　a　certain　relation；　that　superstition　plays　a　great　rle　in　crime；　etc。

It　is　of　exceeding　importance　to　establish　such　purely　empiric　laws　in　our　science；　which　has　done　little　with　such　matters　because；　owing　to　scanty　research　into　most　of　them；　we　need　these　laws。　We　know　approximately　that　this　and　that　have　come　to　light　so　and　so　often；　but　we　have　not　reduced　to　order　and　studied　systematically　the　cases　before　us；　and　we　dare　not　call　this　knowledge　natural　law　because　we　have　subjected　it　to　no　inductive　procedure。　‘‘The　reference　of　any　fact　discovered　by　experience　to　general　laws　or　rules　we　call　induction。　It　embraces　both　observation　and　deduction。''　Again；　it　may　be　defined　as　‘‘the　generalization　or　universalization　of　our　experiences；　and　inference　that　a　phenomenon　occurring　x　times　will　invariably　occur　when　the　essential　circumstances　remain　identical。　The　earliest　investigators　started　with　the　simplest　inductions；that　fire　burns；　that　water　flows　downward；so　that　new；　simple　truths　were　continually　discovered。　This　is　the　type　of　scientific　induction　and　it　requires　further；　the　addition　of　certainty　and　accuracy。''＇1＇

The　foregoing　might　have　been　written　expressly