criminal psychology-第71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！
als do not do this； it is thinking。''＇1＇ I might suggest that in the first place； various animals are capable of something of the sort； and in the second place； that many men are incapable of the same thing。 The lawyer's greatest of all mistakes is always the presupposition that whoever has done anything has also thought about doing it and while he was doing it。 This is especially the case when we observe that many people repeatedly speak of the same event and drive us to the opinion that there must be some intelligent idea behind it；but however narrow a road may be； behind it there may be any number of others in series。
＇1＇ L。 Geiger： Der Ursprung der Sprache。 Stuttgart 1869。
We also are bound to be mistaken if we presuppose the lack of reason as a peculiarity of the uneducated only； and accept as well thought…out the statements of people who possess academic training。 But not everybody who damns God is a philosopher； and neither do academic persons concern themselves unexceptionally with thinking。 Concerning the failure of our studies in the high… schools and in the gymnasia； more than enough has been written； but Helmholtz； in his famous dissertation； ‘‘Concerning the Relation of the Natural Sciences to the Whole of Knowledge；'' has revealed the reason for the inadequacy of the material served up by gymnasia and high…schools。 Helmholtz has not said that the university improves the situation only in a very small degree； but it may be understood from his words。 ‘‘The pupils who pass from our grammar…schools to exact studies have two defects； 1。 A certain laxity in the application of universally valid laws。 The grammatical rules with which they have been trained； are as a matter of fact； buried under series of exceptions； the pupils hence are unaccustomed to trust unconditionally to the certainty of a legitimate consequence of some fixed universal law。 2。 They are altogether too much inclined to depend upon authority even where they can judge for themselves。''
Even if Helmholtz is right； it is important for the lawyer to recognize the distinction between the witness who has the gymnasium behind him and the educated man who has helped himself without that institution。 Our time； which has invented the Ph。 D。； which wants to do everything for the public school and is eager to cripple the classical training in the gymnasium； has wholly forgotten that the incomparable value of the latter does not lie in the minimum of Latin and Greek which the student has acquired； but in the disciplinary intellectual drill contained in the grammar of the ancient tongues。 It is superfluous to make fun of the fact that the technician writes on his visiting cards： Stud。 Eng。 or Stud。 Mech。 and can not pronounce the words the abbreviations stand for； that he becomes Ph。 D。 and can not translate his title；these are side issues。 But it is forgotten that the total examination in which the public school pupil presents his hastily crammed Latin and Greek； never implies a careful training in his most impressionable period of life。 Hence the criminalist repeatedly discovers that the capacity for trained thinking belongs mainly to the person who has been drilled for eight years in Greek and Latin grammar。 We criminalists have much experience in this matter。
Helmholtz's first point would； for legal purposes； require very broad interpretation of the term； ‘‘universally valid laws；'' extending it also to laws in the judicial sense of the word。 The assertion is frequently made that laws are passed in the United States in order that they might not be obeyed； and political regulations are obeyed by the public for； at most； seven weeks。 Of course； the United States is no exception； it seems as if the respect for law is declining everywhere； and if this decline occurs in one field no other is likely to be free from it。 A certain subjective or egoistic attitude is potent in this regard； for people in the main conceive the law to be made only for others； they themselves are exceptions。 Narrow； unconditional adherence to general norms is not modern； and this fact is to be seen not only in the excuses offered； but also in the statements of witnesses； who expect others to follow prescriptions approximately； and themselves hardly at all。 This fact has tremendous influence on the conceptions and constructions of people； and a failure to take it into consideration means considerable error。
Not less unimportant is the second point raised in the notion of ‘‘authority。'' To judge for himself is everybody's business； and should be required of everybody。 Even if nobody should have the happy thought of making use of the better insight； the dependent person who always wants to go further will lead himself into doubtful situations。 The three important factors； school； newspaper； and theater； have reached an extraordinary degree of power。 People apperceive； think； and feel as these three teach them； and finally it becomes second nature to follow this line of least resistance； and to seek intellectual conformity。 We know well enough what consequences this has in law； and each one of us can tell how witnesses present us stories which we believe to rest on their own insight but which show themselves finally to depend upon the opinion of some other element。 We frequently base our constructions upon the remarkable and convincing unanimity of such witnesses when upon closer examination we might discover that this unanimity has a single source。 If we make this discovery it is fortunate； for only time and labor have then been lost and no mistake has been committed。 But if the discovery is not made； the unanimity remains an important； but really an unreliable means of proof。
Section 47。 （b） The Mechanism of Thinking。
Since the remarkable dissertation of W。 Ostwald；＇1＇ on Sept。 20； 1905； we have been standing at a turning point which looks toward a new view of the world。 We do not know whether the ‘‘ignorabimus'' of some of the scientists will hold； or whether we shall be able to think everything in terms of energy。 We merely observe that the supposedly invincible principles of scientific materialism are shaken。
＇1＇ W。 Ostwald： Die berwindung des wissenschaftlichen Materialismus。
Frederick the Great； in a letter to Voltaire； says something which suggests he was the first to have thought of the purely mechanical nature of thought。 Cabanis had said briefly； that the brain secretes thought as the liver bile。 Tyndall expressed this conception more cautiously； and demanded merely the confession that every act of consciousness implies a definite molecular condition of the brain； while Bois…Reymond declared that we could not explain certain psychical processes and events by knowledge of the material processes in the brain。 ‘‘You shall make no picture or comparison； but see as directly as the nature of our spirit will permit；'' Ostwald tells us； and it is well to stick to this advice。 We need neither to cast aside the mechanical view of the world nor to accept energism； neither of them is required。 But according to the teachings of the latter； we shall be enabled to recognize the meaning of natural law in the determination of how actual events are conditioned by possible ones。 And thus we shall see that the form that all natural laws turn to expresses the mediation of an invariable； a quantity that remains unchangeable even when all the other elements in the formula of a possible event alter within the limits defined by the law。＇2＇
＇2＇ A。 Hfler： Psychologie。 Vienna 1897。
Every science must provide its own philosophy； and it is our duty to know properly and to understand clearly how far we may perceive connections between the physical qualities of any one of our witnesses and his psychic nature。 We will draw no inferences ourselves； but we will take note of what does not explain itself and apply to experts to explain what we can not。 This is especially necessary where the relation of the normal to the abnormal becomes a question。
The normal effects to be spoken of are very numerous； but we shall consider only a few。 The first is the connection of symbol and symbolized。 ‘‘The circumstance that the symbol； on its side of the union of the two； becomes perfectly clear while the symbolized object is rather confused； is explained by the fact that the symbol recalls its object more quickly than the object the symbol； e。g。； the tool recalls its use more quickly than the purpose its instrument。 Name and word recall more quickly； reliably； and energetically the objects they stand for than do the objects their symbols。''＇1＇ This matter is more important than it looks at first glance； inasmuch as the particles of time with which we are dealing are greater than those with which modern psychologists have to deal；so large indeed； that they may be perceived in practice。 We lay stress during the examination； when we are in doubt about the correctness of the expected answer； upon the promptness and rapidity with which it is given。 Drawn out； tentative； and uncertain answers； we take for a sign that the witness either is unable or unwilling to give his replies honestly。 If； however； psychologically there are real reasons for variation in the ti
