criminal psychology-第40章
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！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
he autopsy that the girl was pregnant； and so the theory was formed that the merchant had poisoned his mistress and in the examination this deed was set down against him。 Now； if the man had immediately confessed that he knew the dead girl； and stood in intimate relation with her and that he had called on her the last evening； if he had asserted perhaps that she was in despair about her condition； had quarreled with him and had spoken of suicide； etc。； then suicide would unconditionally have had to be the verdict。 In any event； he never could have been accused； inasmuch as there was no additional evidence of poisoning。 But the man conceived the unfortunate notion of denying that he knew the dead girl or had any relations with her； or that he had ever； even on that last evening； called on her。 He did this clearly because he did not want to confess a culpable relation to public opinion； especially to his wife。 And the whole question turned upon this denied circumstance。 The problem of evidence was no longer； ‘‘Has he killed her；'' but ‘‘Did he carry on an intimacy with her。'' Then it was proved beyond reasonable doubt through a long series of witnesses that his visits to the girl were frequent； that he had been there on the evening before her death； and that there could be no possible doubt as to his identity。 That settled his fate and he was sentenced to death。 If we consider the case psychologically we have to grant that his denial of having been present might have for motive as much the fact that he had poisoned the girl； as that he did not want to admit the relation at the beginning。 Later on； when he completely understood the seriousness of his situation； he thought a change of front too daring and hoped to get on better by sticking to his story。 Now； as we have seen； what was proved was the fact that he knew and visited the girl； what he was sentenced for was the murder of the girl。
A similar case； particularly instructive in its development； and especially interesting because of the significant study （of the suggestibility of witnesses） of Dr。 Von Schrenck…Notzing and Prof。 Grashey； kept the whole of Munich in excitement some years ago。 A widow； her grown…up daughter； and an old servant were stifled and robbed in their home。 The suspicion of the crime fell upon a brick…layer who had once before made a confession concerning another murder and of whom it was known that some time before the deed was done he had been building a closet into the house of the three murdered women。 Through various combinations of the facts the supposition was reached that the mason got entry into the house on the pretense of examining whether or not the work he had done on the closet had caused any damage； and had then committed the thieving murder。 Now here again； if the mason had said： ‘‘Yes； I was without a job； wanted to get work； entered the house under the assigned pretense； and appeared to see about the closet and had myself paid for the apparently repaired improvement； left the three women unharmed； and they must only after that have been killed；''if he had said this； his condemnation would have been impossible； for all the other testimony was of subordinate importance。 Now suppose the man was innocent； what could he have thought： ‘‘I have already been examined once in a murder case； I found myself in financial difficulties； I still am in such difficultiesif I admit that I was at the place of the crime at the time the crime was committed； I will get into serious trouble； which I won't； if I deny my presence。'' So he really denied having been in the house or in the street for some time； and inasmuch as this was shown by many witnesses to be untrue； his presence at the place where the crime was committed was identified with the unproved fact that he had committed it； and he was condemned。
I do not assert that either one or the other of these persons was condemned guiltlessly； or that such ‘‘side issues'' have no value and ought not to be proved。 I merely point out that caution is necessary in two directions。 First of all； these side issues must not be identified with the central issue。 Their demonstration is only preparatory work； the value of which must be established cautiously and without prejudice。 It may be said that the feeling of satisfaction with what has been done causes jurists frequently to forget what must yet be done； or to undervalue it。 Further； a psychological examination must seek out the motives which led or might have led the accused to deny some point not particularly dangerous to him。 In most cases an intelligible ground for such action can be discovered； and if the psychologically prior conditions are conceived with sufficient narrowness to keep us from assuming unconditional guilt； we are at least called upon to be careful。
This curious danger of identification of different issues as the aim of presentation of evidence； occurs much more frequently and with comparatively greater degree in the cases of individual witnesses who are convinced of the principal issue when a side issue is proved。 Suppose a witness is called on to identify a man as somebody who had stabbed him in a serious assault； and that he has also to explain whether the quarrel he had had with this man a short time ago was of importance。 If the suspect is desirous of having the quarrel appear as harmless； and the wounded person asserts that the quarrel was serious； the latter will be convinced； the moment his contention may be viewed as true； that his opponent was really the person who had stabbed him。 There is； of course； a certain logical justification for this supposition； but the psychological difficulty with it is the fact that this case； like many others； involves the identification of what is inferred with what is perceived。 It is for this reason that the mere fact of arrest is to most people a conviction of guilt。 The witness who had first identified A as only the probable criminal becomes absolutely convinced of it when A is presented to him in stripes； even though he knows that A has been arrested on his own testimony alone。 The appearance and the surroundings of the prisoner influence many； and not merely uneducated people； against the prisoner； and they think； involuntarily； ‘‘If he were not the one； they would not have him here。''
Section 24。 （b） Causation。＇1＇
If we understand by the term cause the axiom that every change has an occasion； hence that every event is bound up with a number of conditions which when lacking in whole or in part would prevent the appearance of the event； while their presence would compel its appearance； then the whole business of the criminalist is the study of causes。 He must indeed study not only whether and how crime and criminal are causally related； but also how their individual elements are bound to each other and to the criminal； and finally； what causation in the criminal； considered with regard to his individual characteristics； inevitably led to the commission of the crime。 The fact that we deal with the problem of cause brings us close to other sciences which have the same task in their own re…
＇1＇ Max Mayer： Der Kausalzusammenhang zwischen Handlung und Erfolg in Strafrecht。 1899。 von Rohland。 Die Kausallehre im Strafreeht。 Leipzig 1903 H。 Gross's Archiv； XV； 191。
searches； and this is one of the reasons for the criminalist's necessary concern with other disciplines。 Of course no earnest criminalist can pursue other studies for their own sane； he has no time； but he must look about him and study the methods used in other sciences。 In the other sciences we learn method； but not as method； and that is all that we need。 And we observe that the whole problem of method is grounded on causation。 Whether empirically or aprioristically does not matter。 We are concerned solely with causation。
In certain directions our task is next to the historians' who aim to bring men and events into definite causal sequence。 The causal law is indubitably the ideal and only instructive instrument in the task of writing convincing history； and it is likewise without question that the same method is specifically required in the presentation of evidence。 Thus： ‘‘This is the causal chai
