criminal psychology-第61节
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！
t call red blue； if I had the color…vision of another； is as impossible to discover as it is useless。 When the question of color is raised； therefore； we will try to discover only whether the person in question has normal color… vision； or what the nature and degree of his abnormality may be。
＇1＇ W。 Heinrich： bersicht der Methoden bei Untersuchung der Farbenwahr。 nehmungen。 Krakau 1900。
2。 It is not unimportant to know whether single tints are recognizable in the distance。 There have been several examinations of this fact。 Aubert＇2＇ constructed double squares of ten millimeters and determined the angle of vision at which the color as such could be seen。 His results were：
COLOR OF THE WHITE BLACK SQUARE BACKGROUND White 39'' Red 1' 43'' 59'' Light Green 1' 54'' 1' 49'' Dirty Red 3' 27'' 1' 23'' Blue 5' 43'' 4' 17'' Brown 4' 55'' 1' 23''
Light Blue 2' 17'' 1' 23'' Orange 1' 8'' 0' 39'' Gray 4' 17'' 1' 23'' Rose 2' 18'' 3' 99'' Yellow 3' 27'' 0' 39''
＇2＇ Physiologie der Netzha。ut。 Breslau 1865。
It is interesting to notice that the angle for blue on a white background is almost nine times that for white； orange； or yellow on a black background。 In cases where colors are of importance； therefore； it will be necessary to discover the color and the nature of its background before the accuracy of the witness can be established。
3。 It is well known that in the diminution of brightnesses red disappears before blue； and that at night； when all colors have disappeared； the blue of heaven is still visible。 So if anybody asserts that he has been able to see the blue of a man's coat but not his red…brown trousers； his statement is possibly true； while the converse would be untrue。 But there are no reliable or consonant accounts of the order in which colors disappear in increasing darkness。 The knowledge of this order would help a great deal in the administration of criminal justice。
4。 The retina will not see red at the periphery； because there are no red rods there。 A stick of red sealing wax drawn across the eye from right to left； appears at the periphery of the visual field to be black。 If； then； a witness has not looked right at a definitely red object； and has seen it askance； he has certainly not observed its color。 The experiment may be made by anybody。
5。 According to Quantz＇1＇ objects in less refractable colors （red； orange； yellow； and purple） look 0。2 to 3。6％ bigger against white； while blue； blue…green； and violet objects appear from 0。2 to 2。2％ smaller。 Dark and long…lined objects seem longer； bright and horizontal seem wider。 And these facts are significant when witnesses judge of size。
＇1＇ J。 O。 Quantz： The Influence of the Color of Surfaces on our Estimation of their Magnitudes。 Am。 Journal of Psychology VII； 95。
6。 If colors are observed through small openings； especially through very small holes； the nuances become essentially different and green may even seem colorless。
7。 According to Aubert； sparkle consists of the fact that one point in a body is very bright while the brightness diminishes almost absolutely from that point； e。 g。； a glancing wire has a very narrow bright line with deep shadows on each side； a ball of mercury in a thermometer； a shining point and then deep shadow。 When we see this we say it sparkles because we unite it with a number of similar observations。 It is therefore conceivable that at a great distance； under conditions of sharp or accidental illuminations； etc。； we are likely to see things as sparkling which do not do so in the least。 With the concept ‘‘sparkling；'' moreover； we tend to unite； at least under certain circumstances； definite images； and hence ‘‘glancing weapons'' are often seen in places where there were only quite harmless dull objects。 So also coins are seen to sparkle where really there are none。
Section 39。 （3） _The Blind Spot_。
Everybody knows what the blind spot is； and every psychology and physiology text…book talks about it。 But as a rule it is identified only with the little point and the tiny cross pictured in the textbooks； and it is supposed that it does not much matter if the little cross； under certain circumstances； can not be seen。 But it must not be forgotten that the size of the blind spot increases with the distance so that at a fairly great distance； possibly half the length of a room； the blind spot becomes so great that a man's head may disappear from the field of vision。 According to Helmholtz： ‘‘The effect of the blind spot is very significant。 If we make a little cross on a piece of paper and then a spot the size of a pea two inches to the right； and if we look at the cross with the left eye closed； the spot disappears。 The size of the blind spot is large enough to cover in the heavens a plate which has twelve times the diameter of the moon。 It may cover a human face at a distance of 6'； but we do not observe this because we generally fill out the void。 If we see a line in the place in question； we see it unbroken； because we know it to be so； and therefore supply the missing part。''
A number of experiments have been made with more or less success to explain the blind spot。 It is enough for us to agree that we see habitually with both eyes and that the ‘‘spot as big as a pea'' disappears only when we look at the cross。 But when we fix our eyes on anything we pay attention to that only and to nothing else。 And it is indifferent to us if an uninteresting object disappears； so that the moment we begin to care about the ‘‘spot as large as a pea；'' it is immediately to hand and needs no imaginative completion。 If it be objected that fixing with the eyes and being interested are not identical； we reply that a distinction is made only in experiment。 You fix one point and are interested in the other because you expect it to disappear。 And this experiment； as anybody will immediately recognize； has its peculiar difficulty； because it requires much concentration _*not_ to look at the point which interests us。 This never happens in the daily life； and it will not be easy to fix a point which is not interesting。
At the same time there are conceivable cases in which objects seen askance may be of importance； and where the visual fixation of a single point will not reveal every reflection that fell on the blind spot。 I have not met with a practical case in which some fact or testimony could be explained only by the blind spot； but such cases are conceivable。
Section 40。 （c） The Sense of Hearing。
We have two problems with regard to soundwhether the witnesses have heard correctly； and whether we hear them correctly。 Between both witnesses and ourselves there are again other factors。 Correct comprehension； faithful memory； the activity of the imagination； the variety of influences； the degree of personal integrity； but most important is the consideration； whether the witness has heard correctly。 As a general thing we must deny in most cases completely accurate reproduction of what witnesses have heard。 In this connection dealing with questions of honor is instructive。 If the question is the recall of slander the terms of it will be as various as the number of witnesses。 We discover that the sense； the tendency of slander is not easily mistaken。 At least if it is； I have not observed it。 The witness； e。 g。； will confuse the words ‘‘scamp；'' ‘‘cheat；'' ‘‘swindler；'' etc。； and again the words： ‘‘ox；'' ‘‘donkey；'' ‘‘numbskull；'' etc。 But he will not say that he has heard ‘‘scamp'' where what was said was ‘‘donkey。'' He simply has observed that A has insulted B with an epithet of moral turpitude or of stupidity and under examination he inserts an appropriate term。 Often people hear only according to meanings and hence the difficulty of getting them to reproduce verbally and directly something said by a third person。 They always engage upon indirect narration because they have heard only the meaning； not the words。 Memory has nothing to do with this matter； for when in examination； a witness is requested to reproduce directly what he has just heard； he will reproduce no more than the sense； not the words。 Not to do so requires an unusual degree of intelligence and training。
Now if the witnesses only reproduced the actual meaning of what they heard； no harm would be done； but they tell us only what they _*suppose_ to be the meaning； and hence we get a good many mistakes。 It does seem as if uneducated and half…educated people are able to shut their ears to all things they do not understand。 Even purely sensory perception is organized according to intelligent capacity。
If this is kept in mind it will be possible correctly to interpret testimonies in those difficult instances in which one man narrates what he has heard from another concerning his own statement； and where it might be quite impossible to judge the nature and culture of this third person。 There are a few other conditions to consider besides。
I
