criminal psychology-第10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！


h　what　is　properly　called　conscience；　but　more　or　less　with　disease；　with　an　abnormally　excited　imagination。＇3＇　But　where　such　hallucinations　are　lacking；　and　religious　influences　are　absent；　and　the　confession　is　made　freely　in　response　to　mere　pressure；　we　have　a　case　of　conscience；＇4＇another　of　those　terms　which　need　explanation。　I　know　of　no　analogy　in　the　inner　nature　of　man；　in　which　anybody　with　open　eyes　does　himself　exclusive　harm　without　any　contingent　use　being　apparent；　as　is　the　case　in　this　class　of　confession。　There　is　always　considerable　difficulty　in　explaining　these　cases。　One　way　of　explaining　them　is　to　say　that　their　source　is　mere　stupidity

＇1＇　Cf。　the　extraordinary　confession　of　the　wife　of　the　‘‘cannibal''　Bratuscha。　The　latter　had　confessed　to　having　stifled　his　twelve　year　old　daughter；　burned　and　part　by　part　consumed　her。　He　said　his　wife　was　his　accomplice。　The　woman　denied　it　at　first　but　after　going　to　confession　told　the　judge　the　same　story　as　her　husband。　It　turned　out　that　the　priest　had　refused　her　absolution　until　she　‘‘confessed　the　truth。''　But　both　she　and　her　husband　had　confessed　falsely。　The　child　was　alive。　Her　father's　confession　was　pathologically　caused；　her　mother's　by　her　desire　for　absolution。

＇2＇　C。　J。　A。　Mittermaier：　Die　Lehre　vom　Beweise　im　deutsehen　Strafprozess。　Darmstadt　1834。

＇3＇　Poe　calls　such　confessions　pure　perversities。

＇4＇　Cf。　Elsenshaus：　Wesen　u。　Entstehung　des　Gewissens。　Leipzig　1894。

　and　impulsiveness；　or　simply　to　deny　their　occurrence。　But　the　theory　of　stupidity　does　not　appeal　to　the　practitioner；　for　even　if　we　agree　that　a　man　foolishly　makes　a　confession　and　later；　when　he　perceives　his　mistake；　bitterly　regrets　telling　it；　we　still　find　many　confessions　that　are　not　regretted　and　the　makers　of　which　can　in　no　wise　be　accused　of　defective　intelligence。　To　deny　that　there　are　such　is　comfortable　but　wrong；　because　we　each　know　collections　of　cases　in　which　no　effort　could　bring　to　light　a　motive　for　the　confession。　The　confession　was　made　because　the　confessor　wanted　to　make　it；　and　that's　the　whole　story。

The　making　of　a　confession；　according　to　laymen；　ends　the　matter；　but　really；　the　judge's　work　begins　with　it。　As　a　matter　of　caution　all　statutes　approve　confessions　as　evidence　only　when　they　agree　completely　with　the　other　evidence。　Confession　is　a　means　of　proof；　and　not　proof。　Some　objective；　evidentially　concurrent　support　and　confirmation　of　the　confession　is　required。　But　the　same　legal　requirement　necessitates　that　the　value　of　the　concurrent　evidence　shall　depend　on　its　having　been　arrived　at　and　established　independently。　The　existence　of　a　confession　contains　powerful　suggestive　influences　for　judge；　witness；　expert；　for　all　concerned　in　the　case。　If　a　confession　is　made；　all　that　is　perceived　in　the　case　may　be　seen　in　the　light　of　it；　and　experience　teaches　well　enough　how　that　alters　the　situation。　There　is　so　strong　an　inclination　to　pigeonhole　and　adapt　everything　perceived　in　some　given　explanation；　that　the　explanation　is　strained　after；　and　facts　are　squeezed　and　trimmed　until　they　fit　easily。　It　is　a　remarkable　phenomenon；　confirmable　by　all　observers；　that　all　our　perceptions　are　at　first　soft　and　plastic　and　easily　take　form　according　to　the　shape　of　their　predecessors。　They　become　stiff　and　inflexible　only　when　we　have　had　them　for　some　time；　and　have　permitted　them　to　reach　an　equilibrium。　If；　then；　observations　are　made　in　accord　with　certain　notions；　the　plastic　material　is　easily　molded；　excrescences　and　unevenness　are　squeezed　away；　lacun　are　filled　up；　and　if　it　is　at　all　possible；　the　adaptation　is　completed　easily。　Then；　if　a　new　and　quite　different　notion　arises　in　us；　the　alteration　of　the　observed　material　occurs　as　easily　again；　and　only　long　afterwards；　when　the　observation　has　hardened；　do　fresh　alterations　fail。　This　is　a　matter　of　daily　experience；　in　our　professional　as　well　as　in　our　ordinary　affairs。　We　hear　of　a　certain　crime　and　consider　the　earliest　data。　For　one　reason　or　another　we　begin　to　suspect　A　as　the　criminal　The　result　of　an　examination　of　the　premises　is　applied　in　each　detail　　to　this　proposition。　It　fits。　So　does　the　autopsy；　so　do　the　depositions　of　the　witnesses。　Everything　fits。　There　have　indeed　been　difficulties；　but　they　have　been　set　aside；　they　are　attributed　to　inaccurate　observation　and　the　like；the　point　is；that　the　evidence　is　against　A。　Now；　suppose　that　soon　after　B　confesses　the　crime；　this　event　is　so　significant　that　it　sets　aside　at　once　all　the　earlier　reasons　for　suspecting　A；　and　the　theory　of　the　crime　involves　B。　Naturally　the　whole　material　must　now　be　applied　to　B；　and　in　spite　of　the　fact　that　it　at　first　fitted　A；　it　does　now　fit　B。　Here　again　difficulties　arise；　but　they　are　to　be　set　aside　just　as　before。

Now　if　this　is　possible　with　evidence；　written　and　thereby　unalterable；　how　much　more　easily　can　it　be　done　with　testimony　about　to　be　taken；　which　may　readily　be　colored　by　the　already　presented　confession。　The　educational　conditions　involve　now　the　judge　and　his　assistants　on　the　one　hand；　and　the　witnesses　on　the　other。

Concerning　himself；　the　judge　must　continually　remember　that　his　business　is　not　to　fit　all　testimony　to　the　already　furnished　confession；　allowing　the　evidence　to　serve　as　mere　decoration　to　the　latter；　but　that　it　is　his　business　to　establish　his　proof　by　means　of　the　confession；　and　by　means　of　the　other　evidence；　_*independently_。　The　legislators　of　contemporary　civilization　have　started　with　the　proper　presuppositionthat　also　false　confessions　are　made；　and　who　of　us　has　not　heard　such？　Confessions；　for　whatever　reason；because　the　confessor　wants　to　die；　because　he　is　diseased；＇1＇　because　he　wants　to　free　the　real　criminal；can　be　discovered　as　false　only　by　showing　their　contradiction　with　the　other　evidence。　If；　however；　the　judge　only　fits　the　evidence；　he　abandons　this　means　of　getting　the　truth。　Nor　must　false　confessions　be　supposed　to　occur　only　in　case　of　homicide。　They　occur　most　numerously　in　cases　of　importance；　where　more　than　one　person　is　involved。　It　happens；　perhaps；　that　only　one　or　two　are　captured；　and　they　assume　all　the　guilt；　e。　g。；　in　cases　of　larceny；　brawls；　rioting；　etc。　I　repeat：　the　suggestive　power　of　a　confession　is　great　and　it　is　hence　really　not　easy　to　exclude　its　influence　and　to　consider　the　balance　of　the　evidence　on　its　merits；but　this　must　be　done　if　one　is　not　to　deceive　oneself。

Dealing　with　the　witness　is　still　more　ticklish；　inasmuch　as　to　the　difficulties　with　them；　is　added　the　difficulties　with　oneself。　The　simplest　thing　would　be　to　deny　the　existence　of　a　confession；　and

＇1＇　Cf。　above；　the　case　of　the　‘‘cannibal''　Bratuscha。

　thus　to　get　the　witness　to　speak　without　prejudice。　But　aside　from　the　fact　of　its　impossibility　as　a　lie；　each　examination　of　a　witness　would　have　to　be　a　comedy　and　that　would　in　many　cases　be　impossible　as　the　witness　might　already　know　that　the　accused　had　confessed。　The　only　thing　to　be　done；　especially　when　it　is　permissible　for　other　reasons；　is　to　tell　the　witness　that　a　confession　exists　and　to　call　to　his　attention　that　it　is　_*not_　yet　evidence；　and　finally　and　above　all　to　keep　one's　head　and　to　prevent　the　witness　from　presenting　his　evidence　from　the　point　of　view　of　the　already…established。　In　this　regard　it　can　not　be　sufficiently　demonstrated　that　the　coloring　of　a　true　bill　comes　much　less　from　the　witness　than　from　the　judge。　The　most　excited　witness　can　be　brought　by　the　judge　to　a　sober　and　useful　point　of　view；　and　conversely；　the　most　calm　witness　may　utter　the　most　misleading　testimony　if　the　judge　abandons　in　any　way　the　safe　bottom　of　the　indubitably　established　fact。

Very　intelligent　witnesses　（they　are　not　confined　to　the　educated　classes）　may　be　dealt　with　constructively　and　be　told　after　their　depositions　that　the　case　is　to　be　considered　as　if　there　were　no　confession　whatever。　There　is　an　astonishing　number　of　people　especially　among　the　peasantswho　are　amenable　to　such　considerations　and　willingly　follow　if　they　are　led　on　with　confidence。　In　such　a　case　it　is　necessary　to　analyze　the　testimony　into　its　elements。　This　analysis　is　most　difficult　and　important　since　it　must　be　determined　what；　taken　in　itself；　is　an　element；　materially；　not　formally；　and　what　merely　appears　to　be　a　unit。　Suppose　that　during　a　great　brawl　a　man　was　stabbed　and　that　A　confesses　to　the　stabbing。　Now　a　witness　testified　that　A　had　first　uttered　a　threat；　then　had　jumped　into　the　brawl；　felt　in　his　bag；　and　left　the　crowd；　and　that　in　the　interval　between　A's　entering　and　leaving；　the　stabbing　occurred。　In　this　simple　case　the　various　incidents　must　be　evaluated；　and　each　must　be　considered　by　itself。　So　we　considerSuppose　A　had　not　confessed；　what　would　the　threat　have　counted　for？　Might　it　not　have　been　meant　for　the　assailants　of　the　injured　man？　May　his　feeling　in　the　bag　not　be　interpreted　in　another　fashion？　Must　he　have　felt　for　a　knife　only？　Was　there　time　enough　to　open　it　and　to　stab？　Might　the　man　not　have　been　already　wounded　by　that　time？　We　might　then　conclude　that　all　the　evidence　about　A　contained　nothing　against　himbut　if　we　relate　it　to　the　confession；　then　this　evidence　is　almost　equal　to　direct　evidence　of　A's　crime。　

But　if　individual　sense…perceptions　are　mingled　with　conclusions；　and　if　other　equivalent　perceptions　have　to　be　considered；　which　occurred　perhaps　to　other　people；　then　the　analysis　is　hardly　so　simple；　yet　it　must　be　made。

In　dealing　with　less　intelligent　people；　with　whom　this　construction　cannot　be　performed；　one　must　be　satisfied　with　general　rules。　By　demanding　complete　accuracy　and　insisting；　in　any　event；　on　the　ratio　sciendi；　one　may　generally　succeed　in　turning　a　perception；　uncertain　with　regard　to　any　individual；　into　a　trustworthy　one　with　regard　to　the　confessor。　It　happens　comparatively　seldom　that　untrue　confessions　are　discovered；　but　once　this　does　occur；　and　the　trouble　is　taken　to　subject　the　given　evidence　to　a　critical　comparison；　the　manner　of　adaptation　of　the　evidence　to　the　confession　may　easily　be　discovered。　The　witnesses　were　altogether　unwilling　to　tell　any　falsehood　and　the　judge　was　equally　eager　to　establish　the　truth；　nevertheless　the　issue　must　have　received　considerable　perversion　in　order　to　fix　the　guilt　on　the　confessor。　Such　examinations　are　so　instructive　that　the　opportunity　to　make　them　should　never　be　missed。　All　the　testimony　presents　a　typical　picture。　The　evidence　is　consistent　with　the　theory　that　the　real　confessor　was　guilty；　but　it　is　also　consistent　with　the　theory　that　the　real　criminal　was　guilty；　but　some　details　must　be　altered；　often　very　many。　If　there　is　an　opportunity　to　hear　the　same　witnesses　again；　the　procedure　becomes　still　more　instructive。　The　witnesses　（supposing　they　want　honestly　to　tell　the　truth）　naturally　confirm　the　evidence　as　it　points　to　the　second；　more　real　criminal；　and　if　an　explanation　is　asked　for　the　statements　that　pointed　to　the　‘‘confessor；''　the　answers　make　it　indubitably　evident；　that　their　incorrectness　came　as　without　intention；　the　circumstance　that　a　confession　had　been　made　acted　as　a　sugge