criminal psychology-第92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！


o。　The　servant　girl　knows　　concerning　her　master　only　his　manner　of　quarreling　and　his　manner　of　spitting　but　is　absolutely　unaffected　by；　and　strange　to　his　inner　life。　The　darker　aspects　of　culture　and　civilization　are　most　obvious　in　the　external　contacts　of　mankind。

When　we　begin　to　count　an　intelligent　sympathy；　it　must　follow　that　the　sympathy　is　possible　only　with　regard　to　commonly　conceivable　matters；　that　we　must　fundamentally　exclude　the　essential　inward　construction　of　the　mind　and　the　field　of　scientific　morality。　Hence　we　have　left　only　religion；　which　is　the　working　morality　of　the　populace。

According　to　Goethe；　the　great　fundamental　conflict　of　history　is　the　conflict　of　belief　with　doubt。　A　discussion　of　this　conflict　is　unnecessary　here。　It　is　mentioned　only　by　way　of　indicating　that　the　sole　training　on　which　the　criminalist　may　rely　is　that　of　real　religion。　A　really　religious　person　is　a　reliable　witness；　and　when　he　is　behind　the　bar　he　permits　at　least　the　assumption　that　he　is　innocent。　Of　course　it　is　difficult　to　determine　whether　he　is　genuinely　religious　or　not；　but　if　genuine　religion　can　be　established　we　have　a　safe　starting　point。　Various　authors　have　discussed　the　influence　of　education；　_pro_　and　_con_。　Statistically；　it　is　shown　that　in　Russia；　only　10％　of　the　population　can　read　and　write；　and　still　of　36；868　condemned　persons；　no　fewer　than　26；944　were　literate。　In　the　seventies　the　percentage　of　criminals　in　Scotland　was　divided　as　follows；　21％　absolutely　illiterate；　52。7　half　educated；　26。3％　well　educated。

The　religious　statistics　are　altogether　worthless。　A　part　of　them　have　nothing　to　do　with　religion；　e。　g。；　the　criminality　of　Jews。　One　part　is　worthless　because　it　deals　only　with　the　criminality　of　baptized　Protestants　or　Catholics；　and　the　final　section；　which　might　be　of　great　interest；　i。　e。；　the　criminality　of　believers　and　unbelievers；　is　indeterminable。　Statistics　say　that　in　the　country　_A_　in　the　year　_n_　there　were　punished　x％　Protestants；　y％　Catholics；　etc。　Of　what　use　is　the　statement？　Both　among　the　x　and　the　y　percentages　there　were　many　absolute　unbelievers；　and　it　is　indifferent　whether　they　were　Protestant　or　Catholic　unbelievers。　It　would　be　interesting　to　know　what　percentage　of　the　Catholics　and　of　the　Protestants　are　really　faithful；　for　if　we　rightly　assume　that　a　true　believer　rarely　commits　a　crime；　we　should　be　able　to　say　which　religion　from　the　view　point　of　the　criminalist　should　be　encouraged。　The　one　which　counts　the　greater　percentage　of　believers；　of　course；　but　we　shall　never　know　which　one　that　is。　The　numbers　of　the　　‘‘Protestant''　criminals；　and　those　of　the　‘‘Catholics；''　can　not　help　us　in　the　least　in　this　matter。


Section　86。　（2）　_The　View；　of　the　Uneducated_。

‘‘To　discourse　is　nature；　to　assimilate　discourse　as　it　is　given；　is　culture。''　With　this　statement；　Goethe　has　shown　where　the　deficiencies　in　culture　begin；　and　observation　verifies　the　fact　that　the　uncultured　person　is　unable　to　accept　what　is　told　him　as　it　is　told　him。　This　does　not　mean　that　uncultured　people　are　unable　to　remember　statements　as　they　are　made；　but　that　they　are　unable　to　assimilate　any　perception　in　its　integrity　and　to　reproduce　it　in　its　natural　simplicity。　This　is　the　alpha　and　the　omega　of　every　thing　observable　in　the　examination　of　simple　people。　Various　thinkers　in　different　fields　have　noted　this　fact。　Mill；　e。　g。；　observes　that　the　inability　to　distinguish　between　perception　and　inference　is　most　obvious　in　the　attempt　of　some　ignorant　person　to　describe　a　natural　phenomenon。　Douglas　Stewart　notices　that　the　village　apothecary　will　rarely　describe　the　simplest　case　without　immediately　making　use　of　a　terminology　in　which　every　word　is　a　theory。　The　simple　and　true　presentation　of　the　phenomenon　will　reveal　at　once　whether　the　mind　is　able　to　give　an　accurate　interpretation　of　nature。　This　suggests　why　we　are　frequently　engaged　in　some　much…involved　process　of　description　of　a　fact；　in　itself　simple。　It　has　been　presented　to　us　in　this　complicated　fashion　because　our　informants　did　not　know　how　to　speak　simply。　So　Kant：　‘‘The　testimony　of　common　people　may　frequently　be　intended　honestly；　but　it　is　not　often　reliable　because　the　witnesses　have　not　the　habit　of　prolonged　attention；　and　so　they　mistake　what　they　think　themselves　for　what　they　hear　from　others。　Hence；　even　though　they　take　oaths；　they　can　hardly　be　believed。''　Hume；　again；　says　somewhere　in　the　Essay；　that　most　men　are　naturally　inclined　to　differentiate　their　discourse；　inasmuch　as　they　see　their　object　from　one　side　only；　do　not　think　of　the　objections；　and　conceive　its　corroborative　principles　with　such　liveliness　that　they　pay　no　attention　to　those　which　look　another　way。　Now；　whoever　sees　an　object　from　one　side　only　does　not　see　it　as　it　comes　to　him；　and　whoever　refuses　to　think　of　objections；　has　already　subjectively　colored　his　objects　and　no　longer　sees　them　as　they　are。

In　this　regard　it　is　interesting　to　note　the　tendency　of　uneducated　people　to　define　things。　They　are　not　interested　in　the　immediate　　perception；　but　in　its　abstract　form。　The　best　example　of　this　is　the　famous　barrack…room　definition　of　honor：　Honor　is　that　thing　belonging　to　the　man　who　has　it。　The　same　fault　is　committed　by　anybody　who　fails　to　apprehend　the　_*whole_　as　it　comes；　but　perceives　only　what　is　most　obvious　and　nearest。　Mittermaier　has　pointed　out　that　the　light…minded；　accidental　witness　sees　only　the　nearest　characteristics。　Again；　he　says；　‘‘It　is　a　well…known　fact　that　uneducated　people　attend　only　to　the　question　that　was　asked　them　last。''＇1＇　This　fact　is　important。　If　a　witness　is　unskilfully　asked　in　one　breath　whether　he　murdered　A；　robbed　B；　and　stole　a　pear　from　C；　he　will　probably　answer　with　calmness；　‘‘No；　I　have　not　stolen　a　pear；''　but　he　pays　no　attention　to　the　other　two　portions　of　the　question。　This　characteristic　is　frequently　made　use　of　by　the　defense。　The　lawyers　ask　some　important　witness　for　the　prosecution：　‘‘Can　you　say　that　you　have　seen　how　the　accused　entered　the　room；　looked　around；　approached　the　closet；　and　then　drew　the　watch　toward　himself？''　The　uneducated　witness　then　says　dryly；　‘‘No；　I　can　not　say　that；''　although　he　has　seen　everything　except　the　concealment　of　the　watch。　He　denies　the　whole　thing　solely　because　he　has　been　able　to　attend　to　the　last　portion　of　the　question　only。　It　is　very　easy　to　look　out　for　these　characteristics；　by　simply　not　permitting　a　number　of　questions　in　one；　by　having　questions　put　in　the　simplest　and　clearest　possible　form。　Simple　questions　are　thankfully　received；　and　get　better　answers　than　long；　or　tricky　ones。

For　the　same　reason　that　prevents　uneducated　people　from　ever　seeing　a　thing　as　it　comes　to　them；　their　love　of　justice　depends　on　their　eagerness　to　avoid　becoming　themselves　subjects　of　injustice。　Hence；　weak　people　can　never　be　honest；　and　most　uneducated　people　understand　by　duty　that　which　_*others_　are　to　do。　Duty　is　presented　as　required　of　all　men；　but　it　is　more　comfortable　to　require　it　of　others；　so　that　it　is　understood　as　only　so　required。　It　may　be　due　to　the　fact　that　education　develops　quiet　imperturbability；　and　that　this　is　conducive　to　correcter　vision　and　more　adequate　objectivity　in　both　events　and　obligations。

There　is　another　series　of　processes　which　are　characteristic　of　the　point　of　view　of　the　uneducated。　There　is；　e。　g。；　a　peculiar　recurring　mental　process　with　regard　to　the　careful　use　of　life　preservers；　fire　extinguishers；　and　other　means　of　escape；　which　are　to　be　used　_*hastily_　in　case　of　need。　They　are　found　always　carefully


＇1＇　Die　Lehre　vom　Beweise。　Darmstadt　1843。

　chained　up；　or　hidden　in　closets　by　the　ignorant。　This　is　possible　only　if　the　idea　of　protecting　oneself　against　sudden　need　does　not　make　itself　effective　as　such；　but　is　forced　out　of　the　mind　by　the　desire　to　protect　oneself　against　theft。

Why　must　the　uneducated　carefully　feel　everything　that　is　shown　them；　or　that　they　otherwise　find　to　be　new？　Children　even　smell　such　things；　while　educated　people　are　satisfied　with　looking　at　them。　The　request　in　public　places；　‘‘Do　not　touch；''　has　very　good　reason。　I　believe　that　the　level　of　culture　of　an　individual　may　be　determined　without　much　mistake；　by　his　inclination　to　touch　or　not　to　touch　some　new　object　presented　him。　The　reason　for　this　desire　can　hardly　be　established　but　it　is　certainly　the　wish　of　the　uneducated　to　study　the　object　more　fundamentally　and　hence；　to　bring　into　play　other　senses　than　that　of　sight。　It　may　be　that　the　educated　man　sees　more　because　he　is　better　trained　in　careful　observation；　so　that　the　uneducated　man　is　really　compelled　to　do　more　than　merely　to　look。　On　the　other　hand；　it　may　be　that　the　uneducated　man　here　again　fails　to　perceive　the　object　as　it　is；　and　when　it　appears　to　him　as　object　A；　or　is　indicated　as　that　object；　he　is　inclined　to　disbelieve；　and　must　convince　himself　by　careful　feeling　that　it　is　really　an　A。＇1＇　It　may　be；　again；　that　‘‘trains　of　association''　can　help　to　explain　the　matter。

That　an　understanding　of　the　character　of　an　object　is　dependent　on　training　and　educated　observation　has　been　verified　many　times；　incidentally；　also　by　the　fact　that　the　uneducated　find　it　difficult　to　get　on　with　representations。　Now　this　can　not　be　accounted　for　by　only　their　defective　practice。　The　old；　but　instructive　story　of　the　peasant…woman　who　asked　her　son　what　he　was　reading；　the　black　or　the　white；　repeats　itself　whenever　uneducated　people　are　shown　images；　photographs；　etc。　For　a　long　time　I　had　not　noticed　that　they　see　the　background　as　the　thing　to　be　attended　to。　When；　for　example；　you　show　an　uneducated　man　a　bust　photograph；　it　may　happen　that　he　perceives　the　upper　surroundings　of　shoulder　and　head　as　the　lower　contours　of　the　background　which　is　to　indicate　some　fact；　and　if　these　contours　happen　to　be；　e。　g。；　those　of　a　dog；　the　man　sees　‘‘a　white　dog。''　This　is　more　frequent　than　we　think；　and　hence；　we　must　pay　little　attention　to　failures　to　recognize　people　in　photographs。＇2＇　One　more　story　by　way　of　example　that　of　a　photographer　who　snapped　a　dozen　parading　young　drag…


＇1＇　Cf　H。　Gross's　Archiv；　II；　140；　III；　350；　VII；　155。

＇2＇　Cf　H。　Gross's　Archiv；　VII；　160。

　oons；　and　had　gotten　the　addresses；　but　not　the　street　numbers　of　their　parents。　He　sent　for　that　reason　to　the　twelve　parents；　for　inspection；　a　photograph　each　with　the　notice　that　if　some　mistake　had　occurred　he　would　rectify　it。　But　not　a　parent　complained　of　the　photographer's　failure　to　have　sent　them　the　pictures　of　their　own　children。　Each　had　received　a　soldier；　and　appeared　to　be　quite　satisfied　with　the　correctness　of　his　image。　Hence　it　follows　again；　that　denials　of　photographic　identity　by　the　uneducated　are　altogether　without　value。

In　another　direction　images　have　a　peculiar　significance　for　children　and　ignorant　people；　because　they　show　ineradicable　ideas；　particularly　with　regard　to　size。　Nobody　recalls　any　book　so　vividly　as　his　first　picture　book　and　its　contents。　We　remember　it　even　though　we　are　convinced　that　the　people　who　made　our　picture　book　were　quite　mista