criminal psychology-第9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！


　construction　is　indubitably　correct。


Section　8。　（f）　Secrets。


The　determination　of　the　truth　at　law　would　succeed　much　less　frequently　than　it　does　if　it　were　not　for　the　fact　that　men　find　it　very　difficult　to　keep　secrets。　This　essentially　notable　and　not　clearly　understood　circumstance　is　popularly　familiar。　Proverbs　of　all　people　deal　with　it　and　point　mainly　to　the　fact　that　keeping　secrets　is　especially　difficult　for　women。　The　Italians　say　a　woman　who　may　not　speak　is　in　danger　of　bursting；　the　Germans；　that　the　burden　of　secrecy　affects　her　health　and　ages　her　prematurely；　the　English　say　similar　things　still　more　coarsely。　Classical　proverbs　have　dealt　with　the　issue；　numberless　fairy　tales；　narratives；　novels　and　poems　have　portrayed　the　difficulty　of　silence；　and　one　very　fine　modern　novel　（Die　Last　des　Schweigens；　by　Ferdinand　Krnberger）　has　chosen　this　fact　for　its　principal　motive。　The　universal　difficulty　of　keeping　silence　is　expressed　by　Lotze＇1＇　in　the　dictum　that　we　learn　expression　very　young　and　silence　very　late。　The　fact　is　of　use　to　the　criminalist　not　only　in　regard　to　criminals；　but　also　with　regard　to　witnesses；　who；　for　one　reason　or　another；　want　to　keep　something　back。　The　latter　is　the　source　of　a　good　deal　of　danger；　inasmuch　as　the　witness　is　compelled　to　speak　and　circles　around　the　secret　in　question　without　touching　it；　until　he　points　it　out　and　half　reveals　it。　If　he　stops　there；　the　matter　requires　consideration；　for　‘‘a　half　truth　is　worse　than　a　whole　lie。''　The　latter　reveals　its　subject　and　intent　and　permits　of　defence；　while　the　half　truth　may；　by　association　and　circumscriptive　limitations；　cause　vexatious　errors　both　as　regards　the　identity　of　the　semi…accused

＇1＇　Lotze：　Der　Instinkt。　Kleine　Schriften。　Leipzig　1885。

　and　as　regards　the　circumstances　with　which　he　is　thus　involved。　For　this　reason　the　criminalist　must　consider　the　question　of　secrets　carefully。

As　for　his　own　silence；　this　must　be　considered　in　both　directions　That　he　is　not　to　blab　official　secrets　is　so　obvious　that　it　need　not　be　spoken　of。　Such　blabbing　is　so　negligent　and　dishonorable　that　we　must　consider　it　intrinsically　impossible。　But　it　not　infrequently　happens　that　some　indications　are　dropped　or　persuaded　out　of　a　criminal　Judge；　generally　out　of　one　of　the　younger　and　more　eager　men。　They　mention　only　the　event　itself；　and　not　a　name；　nor　a　place；　nor　a　particular　time；　nor　some　even　more　intimate　matter　there　seems　no　harm　done。　And　yet　the　most　important　points　have　often　been　blabbed　of　in　just　such　a　way。　And　what　is　worst　of　all；　just　because　the　speaker　has　not　known　the　name　nor　anything　else　concrete；　the　issue　may　be　diverted　and　enmesh　some　guiltless　person。　It　is　worth　considering　that　the　effort　above　mentioned　is　made　only　in　the　most　interesting　cases；　that　crimes　especially　move　people　to　disgusting　interest；　due　to　the　fact　that　there　is　a　more　varied　approach　to　synthesis　of　a　case　when　the　same　story　is　repeated　several　times　or　by　various　witnesses。　For　by　such　means　extrapolations　and　combinations　of　the　material　are　made　possible。　By　way　of　warning；　let　me　remind　you　of　an　ancient　and　much　quoted　anecdote；　first　brought　to　light　by　Boccaccio：　A　young　and　much　loved　abbe。''　This　squib　is　very　significant　for　our　profession；　for　it　is　well　known　how；　in　the　same　way；　‘‘bare　facts；''　as　‘‘completely　safe；''　are　carried　further。　The　listener　does　not　have　to　combine　them；　the　facts　combine　themselves　by　means　of　others　otherwise　acquired；　and　finally　the　most　important　official　matters；　on　the　concealment　of　which　much　may　perhaps　have　depended；　become　universally　known。　Official　secrets　have　a　general　significance；　and　must　therefore　be　guarded　at　all　points　and　not　merely　in　detail。

The　second　direction　in　which　the　criminal　justice　must　maintain　　silence　looks　toward　witnesses　and　accused。　If；　in　the　first　instance；　the　cause　of　too　much　communicativeness　was　an　over…proneness　to　talk；　its　cause　in　this　case　is　a　certain　conceit　that　teases　one　into　talking。　Whether　the　justice　wants　to　show　the　accused　how　much　he　already　knows　or　how　correctly　he　has　drawn　his　conclusions；　whether　he　wishes　to　impress　the　witness　by　his　confidences；　he　may　do　equally　as　much　harm　in　one　case　as　in　the　other。　Any　success　is　made　especially　impossible　if　the　judge　has　been　in　too　much　of　a　hurry　and　tried　to　show　himself　fully　informed　at　the　very　beginning；　but　has　brought　out　instead　some　error。　The　accused　naturally　leaves　him　with　his　false　suppositions；　they　suggest　things　to　the　witnessand　what　follows　may　be　easily　considered。　Correct　procedure　in　such　circumstances　is　difficult。　Never　to　reveal　what　is　already　known；　is　to　deprive　oneself　of　one　of　the　most　important　means　of　examination；　use　of　it　therefore　ought　not　to　be　belated。　But　it　is　much　worse　to　be　premature　or　garrulous。　In　my　own　experience；　I　have　never　been　sorry　for　keeping　silence；　especially　if　I　had　already　said　something。　The　only　rule　in　the　matter　is　comparatively　self…evident。　Never　move　toward　any　incorrectness　and　never　present　the　appearance　of　knowing　more　than　you　actually　do。　Setting　aside　the　dishonesty　of　such　a　procedure；　the　danger　of　a　painful　exposure　in　such　matters　is　great。

There　is　still　another　great　danger　which　one　may　beware　of；　optima　fide；the　danger　of　knowing　something　untrue。　This　danger　also　is　greatest　for　the　greatest　talent　and　the　greatest　courage　among　us；　because　they　are　the　readiest　hands　at　synthesis；　inference；　and　definition　of　possibilities；　and　see　as　indubitable　and　shut　to　contradiction　things　that　at　best　are　mere　possibilities。　It　is　indifferent　to　the　outcome　whether　a　lie　has　been　told　purposely　or　whether　it　has　been　the　mere　honest　explosion　of　an　over…sanguine　temperament。　It　is　therefore　unnecessary　to　point　out　the　occasion　for　caution。　One　need　only　suggest　that　something　may　be　learned　from　people　who　talk　too　much。　The　over…communicativeness　of　a　neighbor　is　quickly　noticeable；　and　if　the　_*why_　and　_*how　much_　of　it　are　carefully　studied　out；　it　is　not　difficult　to　draw　a　significant　analogy　for　one's　own　case。　In　the　matter　of　secrets　of　other　people；　obviously　the　thing　to　be　established　first　is　what　is　actually　a　secret；　what　is　to　be　suppressed；　if　one　is　to　avoid　damage　to　self　or　another。　When　an　actual　secret　is　recognized　it　is　necessary　to　consider　whether　the　damage　is　greater　through　keeping　or　through　revealing　the　secret。　If　it　is　still　possible；　it　is　well　to　let　the　secret　　bethere　is　always　damage；　and　generally；　not　insignificant　damage；　when　it　is　tortured　out　of　a　witness。　If；　however；　one　is　honestly　convinced　that　the　secret　must　be　revealedas　when　a　guiltless　person　is　endangeredevery　effort　and　all　skill　is　to　be　applied　in　the　revelation。　Inasmuch　as　the　least　echo　of　bad　faith　is　here　impossible；　the　job　is　never　easy。

The　chief　rule　is　not　to　be　overeager　in　getting　at　the　desired　secret。　The　more　important　it　is；　the　less　ought　to　be　made　of　it。　It　is　best　not　directly　to　lead　for　it。　It　will　appear　of　itself；　especially　if　it　is　important。　Many　a　fact　which　the　possessor　had　set　no　great　store　by；　has　been　turned　into　a　carefully　guarded　secret　by　means　of　the　eagerness　with　which　it　was　sought。　In　cases　of　need；　when　every　other　means　has　failed；　it　may　not　be　too　much　to　tell　the　witness；　cautiously　of　course；　rather　more　of　the　crime　than　might　otherwise　have　seemed　good。　Then　those　episodes　must　be　carefully　hit　on；　which　cluster　about　the　desired　secret　and　from　which　its　importance　arises。　If　the　witness　understands　that　he　presents　something　really　important　by　giving　up　his　secret；　surprising　consequences　ensue。

The　relatively　most　important　secret　is　that　of　one's　own　guilt；　and　the　associated　most　suggestive　establishment　of　it；　the　confession；　is　a　very　extraordinary　psychological　problem。＇1＇　In　many　cases　the　reasons　for　confession　are　very　obvious。　The　criminal　sees　that　the　evidence　is　so　complete　that　he　is　soon　to　be　convicted　and　seeks　a　mitigation　of　the　sentence　by　confession；　or　he　hopes　through　a　more　honest　narration　of　the　crime　to　throw　a　great　degree　of　the　guilt　on　another。　In　addition　there　is　a　thread　of　vanity　in　confessionas　among　young　peasants　who　confess　to　a　greater　share　in　a　burglary　than　they　actually　had　（easily　discoverable　by　the　magniloquent　manner　of　describing　their　actual　crime）。　Then　there　are　confessions　made　for　the　sake　of　care　and　winter　lodgings：　the　confession　arising　from　‘‘firm　conviction''　（as　among　political　criminals　and　others）。　There　are　even　confessions　arising　from　nobility；　from　the　wish　to　save　an　intimate；　and　confessions　intended　to　deceive；　and　such　as　occur　especially　in　conspiracy　and　are　made　to　gain　time　（either　for　the　flight　of　the　real　criminal　or　for　the　destruction　of　compromising　objects）。　Generally；　in　the　latter　case；　guilt　is　admitted　only　until　the　plan　for　which　it　was　made　has　succeeded；　then　the　judge　is　surprised　with　well…

＇1＇　Cf。　Lohsing：　‘‘Confession''　in　Gross's　Archiv；　IV；　23；　and　Hausner：　_ibid_。　XIII；　267。

　founded；　regular　and　successful　establishment　of　an　alibi。　Not　infrequently　confession　of　small　crimes　is　made　to　establish　an　alibi　for　a　greater　one。　And　finally　there　are　the　confessions　Catholics＇1＇　are　required　to　make　in　confessional；　and　the　death　bed　confessions。　The　first　are　distinguished　by　the　fact　that　they　are　made　freely　and　that　the　confessee　does　not　try　to　mitigate　his　crime；　but　is　aiming　to　make　amends；　even　when　he　finds　it　hard；　and　desires　even　a　definite　penance。　Death　bed　confessions　may　indeed　have　religious　grounds；　or　the　desire　to　prevent　the　punishment　or　the　further　punishment　of　an　innocent　person。

Although　this　list　of　explicable　confession…types　is　long；　it　is　in　no　way　exhaustive。　It　is　only　a　small　portion　of　all　the　confessions　that　we　receive；　of　these　the　greater　part　remain　more　or　less　unexplained。　Mittermaier＇2＇　has　already　dealt　with　these　acutely　and　cites　examples　as　well　as　the　relatively　well…studied　older　literature　of　the　subject。　A　number　of　cases　may　perhaps　be　explained　through　pressure　of　conscience；　especially　where　there　are　involved　hysterical　or　nervous　persons　who　are　plagued　with　vengeful　images　in　which　the　ghost　of　their　victim　would　appear；　or　in　whose　ear　the　unendurable　clang　of　the　stolen　money　never　ceases；　etc。　If　the　confessor　only　intends　to　free　himself　from　these　disturbing　images　and　the　consequent　punishment　by　means　of　confession；　we　are　not　dealing　with　what　is　properly　called　conscience；　but　more　or　less　with　disease；　with　an　abnormally　excited　imag