criminal psychology-第85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！
form of exposition。 The witness who is immediately examined may； perhaps； say the same thing that he would say several weeks after but his presentation is different； he uses different words； he understands by the different words different concepts； and so his testimony becomes altered。
A similar effect may be brought about by the conditions under which the evidence is given。 Every one of us knows what surprising differences occur between the statements of the witness made in the silent office of the examining justice and his secretary； and what he says in the open trial before the jury。 There is frequently an inclination to attack angrily the witnesses who make such divergent statements。 Yet more accurate observation would show that the testimony is essentially the same as the former but that the manner of giving it is different； and hence the apparently different story。 The difference between the members of the audience has a powerful influence。 It is generally true that reproductive construction is intensified by the sight of a larger number of attentive hearers； but this is not without exception。 In the words ‘‘attentive hearers'' there is the notion that the speaker is speaking interestingly and well； for otherwise his hearers would not be attentive； and if anything is well done and is known to be well done； the number of the listeners is exciting； inasmuch as each listener is reckoned as a stimulating admirer。 This is invariably the case。 If anybody is doing a piece of work under observation he will feel pleasant when he knows that he is doing it well； but he will feel disturbed and troubled if he is certain of his lack of skill。 So we may grant that a large number of listeners increases reproductive constructivity； but only when the speaker is certain of his subject and of the favor of his auditors。 Of the latter； strained attention is not always evidence。 When a scholar is speaking of some subject chosen by himself； and his audience listens to him attentively； he has chosen his subject fortunately； and speaks well； the attention acts as a spur； he speaks still better； etc。 But this changes when； in the course of a great trial which excites general interest； the witness for the government appears。 Strained attention will also be the rule； but it does not apply to him； it applies to the subject。 He has not chosen his topic； and no recognition for it is due himit is indifferent to him whether he speaks ill or well。 The interest belongs only to the subject； and the speaker himself receives； perhaps； the undivided antipathy； hatred； disgust； or scorn； of all the listeners。 Nevertheless； attention is intense and strained； and inasmuch as the speaker knows that this does not pertain to him or his merits； it confuses and depresses him。 It is for this reason that so many criminal trials turn out quite contrary to expectation。 Those who have seen the trial only； and were not at the prior examination； understand the result still less when they are told that ‘‘nothing'' has altered since the prior examinationand yet much has altered； the witnesses； excited or frightened by the crowd of listeners； have spoken and expressed themselves otherwise than before until； in this manner； the whole case has become different。
In a similar fashion； some fact may be shown in another light by the manner of narration used by a particular witness。 Take； as example； some energetically influential quality like humor。 It is self…evident that joke； witticism； comedy； are excluded from the court…room； but if somebody has actually introduced real； genuine humor by way of the dry form of his testimony； without having crossed in a single word the permissible limit； he may； not rarely； narrate a very serious story so as to reduce its dangerous aspect to a minimum。 Frequently the testimony of some funny witness makes the rounds of all the newspapers for the pleasure of their readers。 Everybody knows how a really humorous person may so narrate experiences； doubtful situations of his student days； unpleasant traveling experiences； difficult positions in quarrels； etc。； that every listener must laugh。 At the same time； the events told of were troublesome； difficult； even quite dangerous。 The narrator does not in the least lie； but he manages to give his story the twist that even the victim of the situation is glad to laugh at。＇1＇ As Krpelin says； ‘‘The task of humor is to rob a large portion of human misfortune of its wounding power。 It does so by presenting to us； with our fellows as samples； the comedy of the innumerable stupidities of human life。''
＇1＇ E。 Regnault： La Langage par Gestes。 La Nature XXVI； 315。
Now suppose that a really humorous witness tells a story which involves very considerable consequences； but which he does not really end with tragic conclusions。 Suppose the subject to be a great brawl； some really crass deception； some story of an attack on honor； etc。 The attitude toward the event is altered with one turn； even though it would seem to have been generated progressively by ten preceding witnesses and the new view of the matter makes itself valid at least mildly in the delivery of the sentence。 Then whoever has not heard the whole story understands the results least of all。
In the same way we see really harmless events turned into tragedies by the testimony of a black…visioned； melancholy witness； without his having used； in this case or any other； a single untrue word。 In like manner the bitterness of a witness who considers his personal experiences to be generally true； may color and determine the attitude of some； not at all serious； event。 Nor is this exaggeration。 Every man of experience will； if he is only honest enough； confirm the fact； and grant that he himself was among those whose attitude has been so altered； I avoid the expression‘‘duped。''
It is necessary here； also； to repeat that the movements of the hands and other gestures of the witnesses while making their statements will help much to keep the correct balance。 Movements lie much less frequently than words。＇1＇
＇1＇ Paragraph omitted。
Another means of discovering whether a witness is not seduced by his attitude and his own qualities is the careful observation of the impression his narrative makes on himself。 Stricker has controlled the conditions of speech and has observed that so long as he continued to bring clearly described complexes into a causal relation； _*satisfactory to him_； he could excite his auditors； as soon as he spoke of a relation which _*did not_ satisfy him the attitude of the audience altered。 We must invert this observation； we are the auditors of the witness and must observe whether his own causal connections satisfy him。 So long as this is the case； we believe him。 When it fails to be so he is either lying； or he himself knows that he is not expressing himself as he ought to make us correctly understand what he is talking about。
Section 61。 （b） Dialect Forms。
What every criminal lawyer must unconditionally know is the dialect of those people he has most to deal with。 This is so important that I should hold it conscienceless to engage in the profession of criminology without knowing the dialects。 Nobody with experience would dispute my assertion that nothing is the cause of so great and so serious misunderstandings； of even inversions of justice； as ignorance of dialects； ignorance of the manner of expression of human groups。 Wrongs so caused can never be rectified because their primary falsehood starts in the protocol； where no denial； no dispute and redefinition can change them。
It is no great difficulty to learn dialects； if only one is not seduced by comic pride and foolish ignorance of his own advantage into believing that popular speech is something low or common。 Dialect has as many rights as literary language； is as living and interesting an organism as the most developed form of expression。 Once the interest in dialect is awakened； all that is required is the learning of a number of meanings。 Otherwise； there are no difficulties； for the form of speech of the real peasant （and this is true all over the world）； is always the simplest； the most natural； and the briefest。 Tricks； difficult construction； circumlocutions are unknown to the peasant； and if he is only left to himself he makes everything definite； clear； and easily intelligible。
There are many more difficulties in the forms of expression of the uncultivated city man； who has snapped up a number of uncomprehended phrases and tries to make use of them because of their suppositious beauty； regardless of their fitness。 Unpleasant as it is to hear such a screwed and twisted series of phrases； without beginning and without end； it is equally difficult to get a dear notion of what the man wanted to say； and especially whether the phrases used were really brought out with some purpose or simply for the sake of showing off； because they sound ‘‘educated。''
In this direction nothing is more significant than the use of the imperfect in countries where its use is not customary and where as a rule only the perfect is used； not ‘‘I was going；'' but ‘‘I have gone'' （went）。 In part the reading of newspapers； but partly also th
