criminal psychology-第87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！


w　fact；　well　or　ill；　as　the　case　may　be。　The　frequent　oversight　of　this　fact　is　the　reason　for　many　a　false　interpretation　of　what　the　child　said；　he　is　believed　to　have　perceived　falsely　and　to　have　made　false　restatements；　when　he　has　only　perceived　and　restated　in　his　own　way。

As　children　have　rarely　a　proper　sense　of　the　value　of　life；　they　observe　an　undubitable　death　closely　without　much　fear。　This　explains　many　an　unbelievable　act　of　courage　or　clear　observation　in　a　child　in　cases　where　an　adult；　frightened；　can　see　nothing。　It　is；　hence；　unjust　to　doubt　many　a　statement　of　children；　because　you　doubt　their　‘‘courage。''　‘‘Courage''　was　not　in　question　at　all。

Concerning　the　difference　between　boys　and　girls；　Lbisch＇1＇　says　rightly；　that　girls　remember　persons　better；　and　boys；　things。　He　adds；　moreover：　‘‘The　more　silent　girl；　who　is　given　to　observe

＇1＇　Lbisch：　Entwicklungegeschichte　der　Seele　des　Kindes。　Vienna　1851。

　what　is　before　her；　shows　herself　more　teachable　than　the　spiteful　and　also　more　imaginative　boy　who　understands　with　difficulty　because　he　is　intended　to　be　better　grounded　and　to　go　further　in　the　business　of　knowing。　The　girl；　all　in　all；　is　more　curious；　the　boy；　more　eager　to　know。　What　he　fails　in；　what　he　is　not　spurred　to　by　love　or　talent；　he　throws　obstinately　aside。　While　the　girl　loyally　and　trustfully　absorbs　her　teachings；　the　boy　remains　unsatisfied　without　some　insight　into　the　_why_　or　_how_；　without　some　proof。　The　boy　enters　daily　more　and　more　into　the　world　of　concepts；　while　the　girl　thinks　of　objects　not　as　members　of　a　class；　but　as　definite　particular　things。''


Section　80。　（2）　_Children　as　Witnesses_。

Once；　in　an　examination　of　the　value　of　the　testimony　of　children；　I　found　it　to　be　excellent　in　certain　directions　because　not　so　much　influenced　by　passion　and　special　interest　as　that　of　adults；　and　because　we　may　assume　that　children　have　classified　too　little　rather　than　too　much；　that　they　frequently　do　not　understand　an　event　but　perceive　instinctively　that　it　means　disorder；　and　hence；　become　interested　in　it。　Later　the　child　gets　a　broader　horizon　and　understands　what　he　has　not　formerly　understood；　although；　possibly；　not　altogether　with　correctness。

I　have　further　found　that　the　boy　just　growing　out　of　childhood；　in　so　far　as　he　has　been　well　brought　up；　is　especially　the　best　observer　and　witness　there　is。　He　observes　everything　that　occurs　with　interest；　synthesizes　events　without　prejudice；　and　reproduces　them　accurately；　while　the　girl　of　the　same　age　is　often　an　unreliable；　even　dangerous　witness。　This　is　almost　always　the　case　when　the　girl　is　in　some　degree　talented；　impulsive；　dreamy；　romantic；　and　adventurous；she　expresses　a　sort　of　weltschmerz　connected　with　ennui。　This　comes　early；　and　if　a　girl　of　that　age　is　herself　drawn　into　the　circle　of　the　events　in　question；　we　are　never　safe　from　extreme　exaggeration。　The　merest　larceny　becomes　a　small　robbery；　a　bare　insult；　a　remarkable　attack；　a　foolish　quip；　an　interesting　seduction；　and　a　stupid；　boyish　conversation；　an　important　conspiracy。　Such　causes　of　mistakes　are　well…known　to　all　judges；　at　the　same　time　they　are　again　and　again　permitted　to　recur。

The　sole　means　of　safety　from　them　is　the　clearest　comprehension　possible　of　the　mental　horizon　of　the　child　in　question。　We　have　very　little　general　knowledge　about　it；　and　hence；　are　much　indebted　to　the　contemporary　attempts　of　public…school　teachers　to　supply　　the　information。　We　all　know　that　we　must　make　distinctions　between　city　and　country　children；　and　must　not　be　surprised　at　the　country　child　who　has　not　seen　a　gas…lamp；　a　railroad；　or　something　similar。　Stanley　Hall　tried　to　discover　from　six　year　old　children　whether　they　really　knew　the　things；　the　names　of　which　they　used　freely。　It　seemed；　as　a　result；　that　14％　of　them　had　never　seen　a　star；　45％　had　never　been　in　the　country；　20％　did　not　know　that　milk　came　from　a　cow；　50％　that　fire…wood　comes　from　trees；　13％　to　15％　the　difference　between　green；　blue　and　yellow；　and　4％　had　never　made　the　acquaintance　of　a　pig。

Karl　Lange　made　experiments　（reported　in　‘‘ber　Apperzeption；''　Plauen；　1889）　on　500　pupils　in　33　schools　in　small　towns。　The　experiment　showed　that　82％　had　never　seen　sun…rise；　77％　a　sunset；　36％　a　corn　field；　49％　a　river；　82％　a　pond；　80％　a　lock；　37％　had　never　been　in　the　woods；　62％　never　on　the　mountains；　and　73％　did　not　know　how　bread　was　made　from　grain。　Involuntarily　the　question　arises；　what　must　be　the　position　of　the　unfortunate　children　of　large　cities；　and　moreover；　what　may　we　expect　to　hear　from　children　who　do　not　know　things　like　that；　and　at　the　same　time　speak　of　them　easily？　Adults　are　not　free　from　this　difficulty　either。　We　have　never　yet　seen　a　living　whale；　or　a　sandstorm　in　the　Sahara；　or　an　ancient　Teuton；　yet　we　speak　of　them　confidently　and　profoundly；　and　never　secure　ourselves　against　the　fact　that　we　have　never　seen　them。　Now；　as　we　of　the　ancient　Teuton；　so　children　of　the　woods；　neither　have　seen　them；　but　one　description　has　as　much　or　as　little　value　as　the　other。

Concerning　the　integration　of　senses；　Binet　and　Henri＇1＇　have　examined　7200　children；　whom　they　had　imitate　the　length　of　a　model　line；　or　pick　out　from　a　collection　of　lines　those　of　similar　length。　The　latter　experiment　was　extraordinarily　successful。

The　senses　of　children　are　especially　keen　and　properly　developed。　It　is　anatomically　true　that　very　young　children　do　not　hear　well；　but　that　is　so　at　an　age　which　can　not　be　of　interest　to　us。　Their　sense　of　smell　is；　according　to　Heusinger；　very　dull；　and　develops　at　the　time　of　puberty；　but　later　observers；　in　particular　those　who；　like　Hack；　Cloquet　and　others；　have　studied　the　sense　of　smell；　say　nothing　about　this。

Concerning　the　accuracy　of　representation　in　children　authorities　are　contradictory。　Montaigne　says　that　all　children　lie　and　are


＇1＇　Le　Dmoire　Visuelle　chez　les　Enfants。　Rev。　Gen。　des　Sciences　V。　5。

　obstinate。　Bourdin　corroborates　him。　Maudsley　says　that　children　often　have　illusions　which　seem　to　them　indubitably　real　images；　and　Mittermaier　says　that　they　are　superficial　and　have　youthful　fancies。　Experience　in　practice　does　not　confirm　this　judgment。　The　much　experienced　Herder　repeatedly　prizes　children　as　born　physiognomists；　and　Soden　values　the　disinterestedness　of　children　very　highly。　According　to　Lbisch；　children　tell　untruths　without　lying。　They　say　only　what　they　have　in　mind；　but　they　do　not　know　and　care　very　little　whether　their　mental　content　is　objective　and　exists　outside　of　them；　or　whether　only　half　real　and　the　rest　fanciful。　This　is　confirmed　by　legal　experience　which　shows　us；　also；　that　the　subjective　half　of　a　child's　story　may　be　easily　identified。　It　is　characteristically　different　from　the　real　event　and　a　confusion　of　the　two　is　impossible。

We　must　also　not　forget　that　there　are　lacunae　in　the　child's　comprehension　of　what　it　perceives。　When　it　observes　an　event；　it　may；　e。　g。；　completely　understand　the　first　part；　find　the　second　part　altogether　new　and　unintelligible；　the　third　part　again　comprehensible；　etc。　If　the　child　is　only　half…interested；　it　will　try　to　fill　out　these　lacunae　by　reflection　and　synthesis；　and　may　conceivably　make　serious　blunders。　The　blunders　and　inaccuracies　increase　the　further　back　the　event　goes　into　the　child's　youth。　The　real　capacity　for　memory　goes　far　back。　Preyer＇1＇　tells　of　cases　in　which　children　told　of　events　that　they　had　experienced　at　thirty…two；　twenty…four；　and　even　eighteen　months；　and　told　them　correctly。　Of　course；　adults　do　not　recall　experiences　of　such　an　early　age；　for　they　have　long　since　forgotten　them。　But　very　small　children　can　recall　such　experiences；　though　in　most　cases　their　recollection　is　worthless；　their　circle　of　ideas　being　so　small　that　the　commonest　experiences　are　excluded　from　adequate　description。　But　they　are　worth　while　considering　when　a　mere　fact　is　in　question；　or　is　to　be　doubted　（Were　you　beaten？　Was　anybody　there？　Where　did　the　man　stand？）。

Children's　determinations　of　time　are　unreliable。　Yesterday　and　to…day　are　easily　confused　by　small　children；　and　a　considerably　advanced　intelligence　is　necessary　to　distinguish　between　yesterday　and　a　week　ago；　or　even　a　week　and　a　month。　That　we　need；　in　such　cases；　correct　individualization　of　the　witness　is　self…evident。　The　conditions　of　the　child's　bringing…up；　the　things　he　learned　to　know；　are　what　we　must　first　of　all　learn。　If　the　question　in　hand


＇1＇　W。　Preyer：　Die　Seele　des　Kindes：　Leipzig　1890。

　can　fit　into　the　notion　the　child　possesses；　he　will　answer　better　and　more　if　quite　unendowed；　than　if　a　very　clever　child　who　is　foreign　to　the　notions　of　the　defined　situation。　I　should　take　intelligence　only　to　be　of　next　importance　in　such　cases；　and　advise　giving　up　separating　clever　from　stupid　children　in　favor　of　separating　practical　and　unpractical　children。　The　latter　makes　an　essential　difference。　Both　the　children　of　talent　and　stupid　children　may　be　practical　or　unpractical。　If　a　child　is　talented　and　practical　he　will　become　a　useful　member　of　society　who　will　be　at　home　everywhere　and　will　be　able　to　help　himself　under　any　circumstances。　If　a　child　is　talented　and　unpractical；　it　may　grow　up　into　a　professor；　as　is　customarily　expected　of　it。　If　a　child　is　untalented　and　practical；　it　will　properly　fill　a　definite　place；　and　if　it　has　luck　and　‘‘pull''　may　even　attain　high　station　in　life。　If　it　is　untalented　and　unpractical　it　becomes　one　of　those　poor　creatures　who　never　get　anywhere。　For　the　rle　of　witness　the　child's　practicality　is　the　important　thing。　The　practical　child　will　see；　observe；　properly　understand；　and　reproduce　a　group　of　things　that　the　unpractical　child　has　not　even　observed。　Of　course；　it　is　well；　also；　to　have　the　child　talented；　but　I　repeat：　the　least　clever　practical　child　is　worth　more　as　witness　than　the　most　clever　unpractical　child。

What　the　term　‘‘practical''　stands　for　is　difficult　to　say；　but　everybody　knows　it；　and　everybody　has　seen；　who　has　cared　about　children　at　all；　that　there　are　practical　children。


Section　81。　（3）　_Juvenile　Delinquency_。

There　have　never　lacked　authors　who　have　assigned　to　children　a　great　group　of　defects。　Ever　since　Lombroso　it　has　been　the　custom　in　a　certain　circle　to　find　the　worst　crimes　already　foreshadowed　in　children。　If　there　are　congenital　criminals　it　must　follow　that　there　are　criminals　among　children。　It　is　shown　that　the　most　cruel　and　most　unhuman　men；　like　Nero；　Caracalla；　Caligula；　Louis　XI；　Charles　IX；　Louis　XIII；　etc。；　showed　signs　of　great　cruelty；　even　in　earliest　childhood。　Perez　cites　attacks　of　anger　and　rage　in　children；　Moreau；　early　development　of　the　sense　of　vengeance；　Lafontaine；　their　lack　of　pity。　Nasse　also　calls　attention　to　the　cruelty　and　savagery　of　large　numbers　of　children；　traits　shown　in　their　liking　for　horror…stories；　in　the　topsy…turvy　conclusion　of　the　stories　they　tell　themselves；　in　their　cruelty　to　animals。　Broussais＇1＇


＇1＇　‘‘Irritation　et　Folie。''

　says；　‘‘There　is　hardly　a　lad　who　will　not　intentionally　abuse　weaker　boys。　T