criminal psychology-第95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！


‘‘darkish。''　This　fact　has　a　double　significance。　Sometimes　a　man's　giving　a　word　a　definite　meaning　may　explain　his　whole　nature。　How　heartless　and　raw　is　the　statement　of　a　doctor　who　is　telling　about　a　painful　operation；　‘‘The　patient　sang！''　In　addition；　it　is　frequently　necessary　to　investigate　the　connotation　people　like　to　give　certain　words；　otherwise　misunderstandings　are　inevitable　This　investigation　is；　as　a　rule；　not　easy；　for　even　when　it　is　simple　to　bring　out　what　is　intended　by　an　expression；　it　is　still　quite　as　simple　to　overlook　the　fact　that　people　use　peculiar　expressions　for　ordinary　things。　This　occurs　particularly　when　people　are　led　astray　by　the　substitution　of　similars　and　by　the　repetition　of　such　a　substitution。　Very　few　persons　are　able　to　distinguish　between　identity　and　similarity；　most　of　them　take　these　two　characters　to　be　equivalent。　If　A　and　B　are　otherwise　identical；　save　that　B　is　a　little　bigger；　so　that　they　appear　similar；　there　is　no　great　mistake　if　I　hold　them　to　be　equivalent　and　substitute　B　for　A。　Now　I　compare　B　with　C；　C　with　D；　D　with　E；　etc。；　and　each　member　of　the　series　is　progressively　bigger　than　its　predecessor。　If　now　I　continue　to　repeat　my　first　mistake；　I　have　in　the　end　substituted　for　A　the　enormously　bigger　E　and　the　mistake　has　become　a　very　notable　one。　I　certainly　would　not　have　substituted　E　for　A　at　the　beginning；　but　the　repeated　substitution　of　similars　has　led　me　to　this　complete　incommensurability。　gou_；''　to　stride　proudly；　‘‘dna；''　to　demand。　The　Mpongwes　say；　‘‘m　tonda；''　I　love；　and　‘‘mi　tnda；''　I　do　not　love。　Such　differentiations　in　tone　our　own　people　make　also；　and　the　mutation　of　meaning　is　very　close。　But　who　observes　it　at　all？

Important　as　are　the　changes　in　the　meanings　of　words；　they　fall　short　beside　the　changes　of　meaning　of　the　conception　given　in　the　mode　of　exposition。　Hence；　there　are　still　greater　mistakes；　because　a　single　error　is　neither　easily　noticeable　nor　traceable。　J。　S。　Mill　says；　justly；　that　the　ancient　scientists　missed　a　great　deal　because　they　were　guided　by　linguistic　classification。　It　scarcely　occurred　to　them　that　what　they　assigned　abstract　names　to　really　consisted　of　several　phenomena。　Nevertheless；　the　mistake　has　been　inherited；　and　people　who　nowadays　name　abstract　things；　conceive；　according　to　their　intelligence；　now　this　and　now　that　phenomenon　by　means　of　it。　Then　they　wonder　at　the　other　fellow's　not　understanding　them。　The　situation　being　so；　the　criminalist　is　coercively　required；　whenever　anything　abstract　is　named；　first　of　all　to　determine　accurately　what　the　interlocutor　means　by　his　word。　In　these　cases　we　make　the　curious　discovery　that　such　determination　is　most　necessary　among　people　who　have　studied　the　object　profoundly；　for　a　technical　language　arises　with　just　the　persons　who　have　dealt　especially　with　any　one　subject。

As　a　rule　it　must　be　maintained　that　time；　even　a　little　time；　makes　an　essential　difference　in　the　conception　of　any　object。　Mittermaier；　and　indeed　Bentham；　have　shown　what　an　influence　the　interval　between　observation　and　announcement　exercises　on　the　form　of　exposition。　The　witness　who　is　immediately　examined　may；　　perhaps；　say　the　same　thing　that　he　would　say　several　weeks　after　but　his　presentation　is　different；　he　uses　different　words；　he　understands　by　the　different　words　different　concepts；　and　so　his　testimony　becomes　altered。

A　similar　effect　may　be　brought　about　by　the　conditions　under　which　the　evidence　is　given。　Every　one　of　us　knows　what　surprising　differences　occur　between　the　statements　of　the　witness　made　in　the　silent　office　of　the　examining　justice　and　his　secretary；　and　what　he　says　in　the　open　trial　before　the　jury。　There　is　frequently　an　inclination　to　attack　angrily　the　witnesses　who　make　such　divergent　statements。　Yet　more　accurate　observation　would　show　that　the　testimony　is　essentially　the　same　as　the　former　but　that　the　manner　of　giving　it　is　different；　and　hence　the　apparently　different　story。　The　difference　between　the　members　of　the　audience　has　a　powerful　influence。　It　is　generally　true　that　reproductive　construction　is　intensified　by　the　sight　of　a　larger　number　of　attentive　hearers；　but　this　is　not　without　exception。　In　the　words　‘‘attentive　hearers''　there　is　the　notion　that　the　speaker　is　speaking　interestingly　and　well；　for　otherwise　his　hearers　would　not　be　attentive；　and　if　anything　is　well　done　and　is　known　to　be　well　done；　the　number　of　the　listeners　is　exciting；　inasmuch　as　each　listener　is　reckoned　as　a　stimulating　admirer。　This　is　invariably　the　case。　If　anybody　is　doing　a　piece　of　work　under　observation　he　will　feel　pleasant　when　he　knows　that　he　is　doing　it　well；　but　he　will　feel　disturbed　and　troubled　if　he　is　certain　of　his　lack　of　skill。　So　we　may　grant　that　a　large　number　of　listeners　increases　reproductive　constructivity；　but　only　when　the　speaker　is　certain　of　his　subject　and　of　the　favor　of　his　auditors。　Of　the　latter；　strained　attention　is　not　always　evidence。　When　a　scholar　is　speaking　of　some　subject　chosen　by　himself；　and　his　audience　listens　to　him　attentively；　he　has　chosen　his　subject　fortunately；　and　speaks　well；　the　attention　acts　as　a　spur；　he　speaks　still　better；　etc。　But　this　changes　when；　in　the　course　of　a　great　trial　which　excites　general　interest；　the　witness　for　the　government　appears。　Strained　attention　will　also　be　the　rule；　but　it　does　not　apply　to　him；　it　applies　to　the　subject。　He　has　not　chosen　his　topic；　and　no　recognition　for　it　is　due　himit　is　indifferent　to　him　whether　he　speaks　ill　or　well。　The　interest　belongs　only　to　the　subject；　and　the　speaker　himself　receives；　perhaps；　the　undivided　antipathy；　hatred；　disgust；　or　scorn；　of　all　the　listeners。　Nevertheless；　attention　is　intense　and　strained；　and　inasmuch　as　the　speaker　knows　that　this　does　not　pertain　to　him　or　his　merits；　it　confuses　and　depresses　him。　　It　is　for　this　reason　that　so　many　criminal　trials　turn　out　quite　contrary　to　expectation。　Those　who　have　seen　the　trial　only；　and　were　not　at　the　prior　examination；　understand　the　result　still　less　when　they　are　told　that　‘‘nothing''　has　altered　since　the　prior　examinationand　yet　much　has　altered；　the　witnesses；　excited　or　frightened　by　the　crowd　of　listeners；　have　spoken　and　expressed　themselves　otherwise　than　before　until；　in　this　manner；　the　whole　case　has　become　different。

In　a　similar　fashion；　some　fact　may　be　shown　in　another　light　by　the　manner　of　narration　used　by　a　particular　witness。　Take；　as　example；　some　energetically　influential　quality　like　humor。　It　is　self…evident　that　joke；　witticism；　comedy；　are　excluded　from　the　court…room；　but　if　somebody　has　actually　introduced　real；　genuine　humor　by　way　of　the　dry　form　of　his　testimony；　without　having　crossed　in　a　single　word　the　permissible　limit；　he　may；　not　rarely；　narrate　a　very　serious　story　so　as　to　reduce　its　dangerous　aspect　to　a　minimum。　Frequently　the　testimony　of　some　funny　witness　makes　the　rounds　of　all　the　newspapers　for　the　pleasure　of　their　readers。　Everybody　knows　how　a　really　humorous　person　may　so　narrate　experiences；　doubtful　situations　of　his　student　days；　unpleasant　traveling　experiences；　difficult　positions　in　quarrels；　etc。；　that　every　listener　must　laugh。　At　the　same　time；　the　events　t