criminal psychology-第43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！


itnesses　who　give　expression　only　to　the　first　and　the　last　deduction。　If　we　do　not　then　examine　and　investigate　the　intermediary　links　and　their　justification；　we　deserve　to　hear　extravagant　things；　and　what　is　worse；　to　make　them；　as　we　do；　the　foundation　of　further　inference。　And　once　this　is　done　no　man　can　discover　where　the　mistake　lies。

If　again　an　inference　is　omitted　as　self…evident　（cf。　the　case　of　gravity；　in　falling　down　stairs）　the　source　of　error　and　the　difficulty　lies　in　the　fact　that；　on　the　one　hand；　not　everything　is　as　self…evident　as　it　seems；　on　the　other；　that　two　people　rarely　understand　the　same　thing　by　‘‘self…evident；''　so　that　what　is　self…evident　to　one　is　far　from　so　to　the　other。　This　difference　becomes　especially　clear　when　a　lawyer　examines　professional　people　who　can　imagine　offhand　what　is　in　no　sense　self…evident　to　persons　in　other　walks　of　life。　I　might　cite　out　of　my　own　experience；　that　the　physicist　Boltzmann；　one　of　the　foremost　of　living　mathematicians；　was　told　once　upon　a　time　that　his　demonstrations　were　not　sufficiently　detailed　to　be　intelligible　to　his　class　of　non…professionals；　so　that　his　hearers　could　not　follow　him。　As　a　result；　he　carefully　counted　the　simplest　additions　or　interpolations　on　the　blackboard；　but　at　　the　same　time　integrated　them；　etc。；　in　his　head；　a　thing　which　very　few　people　on　earth　can　do。　It　was　simply　an　off…hand　matter　for　this　genius　to　do　that　which　ungenial　mortals　can　not。

This　appears　in　a　small　way　in　every　second　criminal　case。　We　have　only　to　substitute　the　professionals　who　appear　as　witnesses。　Suppose；　e。　g。；　that　a　hunter　is　giving　testimony。　He　will　omit　to　state　a　group　of　correlations；　with　regard　to　things　which　are　involved　in　his　trade；　he　will　reach　his　conclusion　with　a　single　jump。　Then　we　reach　the　fatal　circle　that　the　witness　supposes　that　we　can　follow　him　and　his　deductions；　and　are　able　to　call　his　attention　to　any　significant　error；　while　we；　on　the　other　hand；　depend　on　his　professional　knowledge；　and　agree　to　his　leaping　inferences　and　allow　his　conclusions　to　pass　as　valid　without　knowing　or　being　able　to　test　them。

The　notion　of　‘‘specialist''　or　‘‘professional''　must　be　applied　in　such　instances　not　only　to　especial　proficients　in　some　particular　trade；　but　also　to　such　people　as　have　by　accident　merely；　any　form　of　specialized　knowledge；　e。　g。；　knowledge　of　the　place　in　which　some　case　had　occurred。　People　with　such　knowledge　present　many　a　thing　as　self…evident　that　can　not　be　so　to　people　who　do　not　possess　the　knowledge。　Hence；　peasants　who　are　asked　about　some　road　in　their　own　well　known　country　reply　that　it　is　‘‘straight　ahead　and　impossible　to　miss''　even　when　the　road　may　turn　ten　times；　right　and　left。

Human　estimates　are　reliable　only　when　tested　and　reviewed　at　each　instant；　complicated　deductions　are　so　only　when　deduction　after　deduction　has　been　tested；　each　in　itself；　Lawyers　must；　therefore；　inevitably　follow　the　rule　of　requiring　explication　of　each　step　in　an　inferencesuch　a　requirement　will　at　least　narrow　the　limits　of　error。

The　task　would　be　much　easier　if　we　were　fortunate　enough　to　be　able　to　help　ourselves　with　experiments。　As　Bernard＇1＇　says；　‘‘There　is　an　absolute　determinism　in　the　existential　conditions　of　natural　phenomena；　as　much　in　living　as　in　non…living　bodies。　If　the　condition　of　any　phenomenon　is　recognized　and　fulfilled　the　phenomenon　must　occur　whenever　the　experimenter　desires　it。''　But　such　determination　can　be　made　by　lawyers　in　rare　cases　only；　and　to…day　the　criminalist　who　can　test　experimentally　the　generally　asserted　circumstance　attested　by　witnesses；　accused；　or　experts；

＇1＇　C。　Bernard：　Introduction　　l'Etude　de　la　Med