criminal psychology-第67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！

inary　things　they　say。　Yet　what　do　we　require　of　witnesses　who　have　to　describe　much　more　complicated　matters　to　which　their　attention　had　not　been　previously　called；　and　who　have　to　make　their　answers；　not　immediately；　but　much　later；　and　who；　moreover；　may；　in　the　presence　of　the　fact；　have　been　overcome　by　fear；　astonishment；　terror；　etc。！　I　find　that　probing　even　comparatively　trained　wit…　　nesses　is　rather　too　funny；　and　the　conclusions　drawn　from　what　is　so　learned　are　rather　too　conscienceless。＇1＇　Such　introductions　as：　‘‘But　you　will　know；''‘‘Just　recall　this　one；''‘‘You　wouldn't　be　so　stupid　as　not　to　have　observed　whether；''‘‘But　my　dear　woman；　you　have　eyes；''and　whatever　else　may　be　offered　in　this　kindly　fashion；　may　bring　out　an　answer；　but　what　real　worth　can　such　an　answer　have？


＇1＇　Cf。　Borst　u。　Claparde：　Sur　divers　Caractres　du　Temoigna　e。　Archives　des　Sciences　Phys。　et　Nat。　XVII。　Diehl：　zum　Studium　der　Merktahugkeit。　Beitr。　zur　Psych。　der　Aussage；　II；　1903


One　bright　day　I　came　home　from　court　and　saw　a　man　step　out　of　a　cornfield；　remain　a　few　instants　in　my　field　of　vision；　and　then　disappear。　I　felt　at　once　that　the　man　had　done　something　suspicious；　and　immediately　asked　myself　how　he　looked。　I　found　I　knew　nothing　of　his　clothes；　his　dress；　his　beard；　his　size；　in　a　word；　nothing　at　all　about　him。　But　how　I　would　have　punished　a　witness　who　should　have　known　just　as　little。　We　shall　have；　in　the　course　of　this　examination；　frequently　to　mention　the　fact　that　we　do　not　see　an　event　in　spite　of　its　being　in　the　field　of　perception。　I　want　at　this　point　merely　to　call　attention　to　a　single　well…known　case；　recorded　by　Hofmann。＇2＇　At　a　trial　a　circumstantial　and　accurate　attempt　was　made　to　discover　whether　it　was　a　significant　alteration　to　bite　a　man's　ear　off。　The　court；　the　physician；　the　witnesses；　etc。；　dealt　with　the　question　of　altering；　until　finally　the　wounded　man　himself　showed　what　was　meant；　because　his　other　ear　had　been　bitten　off　many　years　before；but　then　nobody　had　noticed　that　mutilated　ear。


＇2＇　Gericht。　Medizin。　Vienna　1898。　p。　447。


In　order　to　know　what　another　person　has　seen　and　apprehended　we　must　first　of　all　know　how　he　thinks；　and　that　is　impossible。　We　frequently　say　of　another　that　he　must　have　thought　this　or　that；　or　have　hit　upon　such　and　such　ideas；　but　what　the　events　in　another　brain　may　be　we　can　never　observe。　As　Bois…Reymond　says　somewhere：　‘‘If　Laplace's　ghost　could　build　a　homunculus　according　to　the　Leibnitzian　theory；　atom　by　atom　and　molecule　by　molecule；　he　might　succeed　in　making　it　think；　but　not　in　knowing　how　it　thinks。''　But　if　we　know；　at　least　approximately；　the　kind　of　mental　process　of　a　person　who　is　as　close　as　possible　to　us　in　sex；　age；　culture；　position；　experience；　etc。；　we　lose　this　knowledge　with　every　step　that　leads　to　differences。　We　know　well　what　great　influence　is　exercised　by　the　multiplicity　of　talents；　superpositions；　knowledge；　and　apprehensions。　When　we　consider　the　qualities　　of　things；　we　discover　that　we　never　apprehend　them　abstractly；　but　always　concretely。　We　do　not　see　color　but　the　colored　object；　we　do　not　see　warmth；　but　something　warm；　not　hardness；　but　something　hard。　The　concept　warm；　as　such；　can　not　be　thought　of　by　anybody；　and　at　the　mention　of　the　word　each　will　think　of　some　particular　warm　object；　one；　of　his　oven　at　home；　another；　of　a　warm　day　in　Italy；　another　of　a　piece　of　hot　iron　which　burnt　him　once。　Then　the　individual　does　not　pay　constant　court　to　the　same　object。　To…day　he　has　in　mind　this　concrete　thing；　to…morrow；　he　uses　different　names　and　makes　different　associations。　But　every　concrete　object　I　think　of　has　considerable　effect　on　the　new　apprehension；　and　my　auditor　does　not　know；　perhaps　even　I　myself　do　not；　what　concrete　object　I　have　already　in　mind。　And　although　Berkeley　has　already　shown　that　color　can　not　be　thought　of　without　space　or　space　without　color；　the　task　of　determining　the　concrete　object　to　which　the　witness　attaches　the　qualities　he　speaks　of；　will　still　be　overlooked　hundreds　of　times。

It　is　further　of　importance　that　everybody　has　learned　to　know　the　object　he　speaks　about　through　repetition；　that　different　relations　have　shown　him　the　matter　in　different　ways。　If　an　object　has　impressed　itself　upon　us；　once　pleasurably　and　once　unpleasantly；　we　can　not　derive　the　history　and　character　of　the　present　impression　from　the　object　alone；　nor　can　we　find　it　merely　in　the　synthetic　memory　sensations　which　are　due　to　the　traces　of　the　former　coalescing　impressions。　We　are　frequently　unable；　because　of　this　coalescing　of　earlier　impressions；　to　keep　them　apart　and　to　study　their　effect　on　present　impressions。　Frequently　we　do　not　even　at　all　know　why　this　or　that　impression　is　so　vivid。　But　if　we　are　ignorant　with　regard　to　what　occurs　in　ourselves；　how　much　can　we　know　about　others？

Exner　calls　attention　to　the　fact　that　it　is　in　this　direction　especially；　that　the　‘‘dark　perceptions''　play　a　great　rle。　‘‘A　great　part　of　our　intelligence　depends　on　the　ability　of　these　‘dark　perceptions'　to　rise　without　requiring　further　attention；　into　the　field　of　consciousness。　There　are　people；　e。　g。；　who　recognize　birds　in　their　flight　without　knowing　clearly　what　the　characteristic　flight　for　any　definite　bird　may　be。　Others；　still　more　intelligent；　know　at　what　intervals　the　flyers　beat　their　wings；　for　they　can　imitate　them　with　their　hands。　And　when　the　intelligence　is　still　greater；　it　makes　possible　a　correct　description　in　words。''

Suppose　that　in　some　important　criminal　case　several　people；　　of　different　degrees　of　education　and　intelligence；　have　made　observations。　We　suppose　that　they　all　want　to　tell　the　truth；　and　we　also　suppose　that　they　have　observed　and　apprehended　their　objects　correctly。　Their　testimonies；　nevertheless；　will　be　very　different。　With　the　degree　of　intelligence　rises　the　degree　of　effect　of　the　‘‘dark　subconscious　perceptions。''　They　give　more　definite　presentation　and　explanation　of　the　testimony；　they　turn　bare　assertions　into　well…ordered　perceptions　and　real　representations。　But　we　generally　make　the　mistake　of　ascribing　the　variety　of　evidence　to　varying　views；　or　to　dishonesty。

To　establish　the　unanimity　of　such　various　data；　or　to　find　out　whether　they　have　such　unanimity；　is　not　easy。　The　most　comfortable　procedure　is　to　compare　the　lesser　testimonies　with　those　of　the　most　intelligent　of　the　witnesses。　As　a　rule；　anybody　who　has　a　subconscious　perception　of　the　object　will　be　glad　to　bring　it　out　if　he　is　helped　by　some　form　of　expression；　but　the　danger　of　suggestion　is　here　so　great　that　this　assistance　must　be　given　only　in　the　rarest　of　cases。　The　best　thing　is　to　help　the　witness　to　his　full　evidence　gradually；　at　the　same　time　taking　care　not　to　suggest　oneself　and　thus　to　cause　agreement　of　several　testimonies　which　were　really　different　but　only　appeared　to　look　contradictory　on　account　of　the　effect　of　subconscious　perceptions。　The　very　best　thing　is　to　take　the　testimony　as　it　comes；　without　alteration；　and　later　on；　when　there　is　a　great　deal　of　material　and　the　matter　has　grown　clearer；　to　test　the　stuff　carefully　and　to　see　whether　the　less　intelligent　persons　gave　different　testimonies　through　lack　of　capacity　in　expression；　or　because　they　really　had　perceived　different　things　and　had　different　things　to　say。

This　is　important　when　the　witnesses　examined　are　experts　in　the　matter　in　which　they　are　examined。　I　am　convinced　that　the　belief　that　such　people　must　be　the　best　witnesses；　is　false；　at　least　as　a　generalization。　Benneke　（loco　cit。）；　has　also　made　similar　observations。　‘‘The　chemist　who　perceives　a　chemical　process；　the　connoisseur　a　picture；　the　musician　a　symphony；　perceive　them　with　more　vigorous　attention　than　the　layman；　but　the　actual　attention　may　be　greater　with　the　latter。''　For　our　own　affair；　it　is　enough　to　know　that　the　judgment　of　the　expert　will　naturally　be　better　than　that　of　the　layman；　his　apprehension；　however；　is　as　a　rule　one…sided；　not　so　far…reaching　and　less　uncolored。　It　is　natural　that　every　expert；　especially　when　he　takes　his　work　seriously；　should　find　most　interest　in　that　side　of　an　event　with　which　his　　profession　deals。　Oversight　of　legally　important　matters　is；　therefore；　almost　inevitable。　I　remember　how　an　eager　young　doctor　was　once　witness　of　an　assault　with　intent　to　kill。　He　had　seen　how　in　an　inn　the　criminal　had　for　some　time　threatened　his　victim　with　a　heavy　porcelain　match…tray。　‘‘The　os　parietale　may　here　be　broken；''　the　doctor　thought；　and　while　he　was　thinking　of　the　surgical　consequences　of　such　a　blow；　the　thing　was　done　and　the　doctor　had　not　seen　how　the　blow　was　delivered；　whether　a　knife　had　been　drawn　by　the　victim；　etc。　Similarly；　during　an　examination　concerning　breaking　open　the　drawer　of　a　table；　the　worst　witness　was　the　cabinet…maker。　The　latter　was　so　much　interested　in　the　foreign　manner　in　which　the　portions　of　the　drawer　had　been　cemented　and　in　the　curious　wood；　that　he　had　nothing　to　say　about　the　legally　important　question　of　how　the　break　was　made；　what　the　impression　of　the　damaging　tool　was；　etc。　Most