Criminal Psychology, Hans Gross [jenna bush book club .txt] 📗

as Tertullian and Socrates is identical with theirs. Numerous examinations of witnesses made me think of Tertullian’s maxim, for the testimonies presented the most improbable things as facts. And when they even explained the most unintelligible things I thought: “And what you do not understand is also good.”

 

This belief of uncultured people in their own intelligence has been most excellently portrayed by Wieland in his immortal “Abderites.”

The fourth philosopher says: “What you call the world <p 170>

is essentially an infinite series of worlds which envelop one another like the skin of an onion.” “Very clear,” said the Abderites, and thought they understood the philosopher because they knew perfectly well what an onion looked like. The inference which is drawn from the comprehension of one term in a comparison to the comprehension of the other is one of the most important reasons for the occurrence of so many misunderstandings. The example, as such, is understood, but its application to the assertion and the question whether the latter is also made clear by the example are forgotten.

This explains the well known and supreme power of examples and comparisons, and hence the wise of all times have used comparisons in speaking to the poor in spirit. Hence, too, the great effect of comparisons, and also the numerous and coarse misunderstandings and the effort of the untrained and unintelligent to clarify those things they do not understand by means of comparisons. Fortunately they have, in trying to explain the thing to other people, the habit of making use of these difficultly discovered comparisons so that the others, if they are only sufficiently observant, may succeed in testing the correctness of the inference from one term in a comparison to the other. We do this frequently in examining witnesses, and we discover that the witness has made use of a figure to clarify some unintelligible point and that he necessarily understands it since it lies within the field of his instruments of thought.

But what is compared remains as confused to him as before. The test of it, therefore, is very tiring and mainly without results, because one rarely succeeds in liberating a man from some figure discovered with difficulty. He always returns to it because he understands it, though really not what he compares. But what is gained in such a case is not little, for the certainty that, so revealed, the witness does not understand the matter in hand, easily determines the value of his testimony.

 

The fullness of the possibilities under which anything may be asserted is also of importance in this matter. The inference that a thing is impossible is generally made by most people in such wise that they first consider the details of the eventualities they already know, or immediately present. Then, when these are before them, they infer that the matter is quite impossible—and whether one or more different eventualities have missed of consideration, is not studied at all. Our kindly professor of physics once told us: “Today I intended to show you the beautiful experiments in the interference of light—but it can not be observed in daylight and when <p 171>

I draw the curtains you raise rough-house. The demonstration is therefore impossible and I take the instruments away.” The good man did not consider the other eventuality, that we might be depended upon to behave decently even if the curtains were drawn.

 

Hence the rule that a witness’s assertion that a thing is impossible must never be trusted. Take the simplest example. The witness assures us that it is impossible for a theft to have been committed by some stranger from outside. If you ask him why, he will probably tell you: “Because the door was bolted and the windows barred.”

The eventuality that the thief might have entered by way of the chimney, or have sent a child between the bars of the window, or have made use of some peculiar instrument, etc., are not considered, and would not be if the question concerning the ground of the inference had not been put.

 

We must especially remember that we criminalists “must not dally with mathematical truth but must seek historical truth. We start with a mass of details, unite them, and succeed by means of this union and test in attaining a result which permits us to judge concerning the existence and the characteristics of past events.”

The material of our work lies in the mass of details, and the manner and reliability of its presentation determines the certainty of our inferences.

 

Seen more closely the winning of this material may be described as Hume describes it:[1] “If we would satisfy ourselves, therefore, concerning the nature of that evidence which assures us of matters of fact, we must inquire how we arrive at the knowledge of cause and effect. I shall venture to affirm as a general proposition which admits of no exception, that the knowledge of this relation is not, in any instance, attained by reasonings a priori; but arises entirely from experience, when we find that any particular objects are constantly conjoined with each other; … nor can our reason, unassisted by experience, ever draw any inference concerning real existence and matter of fact.”

 

[1] David Hume: Enquiry, p. 33 (Open Court Ed.).

 

In the course of his explanation Hume presents two propositions, (1) I have found that such an object has always been attended with such an effect.

 

(2) I foresee that other objects which are in appearance similar, will be attended with similar effects.

 

He goes on: “I shall allow, if you please, that the one proposition may justly be inferred from the other; I know in fact that it always <p 172>

is inferred. But if you insist that the inference is made by a chain of reasoning, I desire you to produce that chain of reasoning. The connection between these propositions is not intuitive. There is required a medium which may enable the mind to draw such an inference, if, indeed, it be drawn by reasoning and argument. What the medium is, I must confess, passes my comprehension; and it is incumbent on those to produce it who assert that it exists, and is the origin of all our conclusions concerning matters of fact.”

 

If we regard the matter more closely we may say with certainty: This medium exists not as a substance but as a transition. When I speak in the proposition of “such an object,” I already have “similar” in mind, inasmuch as there is nothing absolutely like anything else, and when I say in the first proposition, “such an object,” I have already passed into the assertion made in the second proposition.

 

Suppose that we take these propositions concretely: (1) I have discovered that bread made of corn has a nourishing effect.

 

(2) I foresee that other apparently similar objects, e. g., wheat, will have a like effect.

 

I could not make various experiments with the same corn in case (1). I could handle corn taken as such from one point of view, or considered as such from another, i. e., I could only experiment with very similar objects. I can therefore make these experiments with corn from progressively remoter starting points, or soils, and finally with corn from Barbary and East Africa, so that there can no longer be any question of identity but only of similarity. And finally I can compare two harvests of corn which have less similarity than certain species of corn and certain species of wheat. I am therefore entitled to speak of identical or similar in the first proposition as much as in the second. One proposition has led into another and the connection between them has been discovered.

 

The criminological importance of this “connection” lies in the fact that the correctness of our inferences depends upon its discovery.

We work continuously with these two Humian propositions, and we always make our assertion, first, that some things are related as cause and effect, and we join the present case to that because we consider it similar. If it is really similar, and the connection of the first and the second proposition are actually correct, the truth of the inference is attained. We need not count the unexplained wonders of numerical relations in the result. D’Alembert <p 173>

asserts: “It seems as if there were some law of nature which more frequently prevents the occurrence of regular than irregular combinations; those of the first kind are mathematically, but not physically, more probable. When we see that high numbers are thrown with some one die, we are immediately inclined to call that die false.” And John Stuart Mill adds, that d’Alembert should have set the problem in the form of asking whether he would believe in the die if, after having examined it and found it right, somebody announced that ten sixes had been cast with it.

 

We may go still further and assert that we are generally inclined to consider an inference wrong which indicates that accidental matters have occurred in regular numerical relation. Who believes the hunter’s story that he has shot 100 hares in the past week, or the gambler’s that he has won 1000 dollars; or the sick man’s, that he was sick ten times? It will be supposed at the very least that each is merely indicating an approximately round sum. Ninety-six hares, 987 dollars, and eleven illnesses will sound more probable. And this goes so far that during examinations, witnesses are shy of naming such “improbable ratios,” if they at all care to have their testimony believed. Then again, many judges are in no wise slow to jump at such a number and to demand an “accurate statement,” or eves immediately to decide that the witness is talking only “about.”

How deep-rooted such views are is indicated by the circumstance that bankers and other merchants of lottery tickets find that tickets with “pretty numbers” are difficult to sell. A ticket of series 1000, number 100 is altogether unsalable, for such a number “can not possibly be sold.” Then again, if one has to count up a column of accidental figures and the sum is 1000, the correctness of the sum is always doubted.

 

Here are facts which are indubitable and unexplained. We must therefore agree neither to distrust so-called round numbers, nor to place particular reliance on quite irregular figures. Both should be examined.

 

It may be that the judgment of the correctness of an inference is made analogously to that of numbers and that the latter exercise an influence on the judgment which is as much conceded popularly as it is actually combated. Since Kant, it has been quite discovered that the judgment that fools are in the majority must lead through many more such truths in judging—and it is indifferent whether the judgment dealt with is that of the law court or of a voting legislature or mere judgments as such.

<p 174>

 

Schiel says, “It has been frequently asserted that a judgment is more probably correct according to the number of judges and jury.

Quite apart from the fact that the judge is less careful, makes less effort, and feels less responsibility when he has associates, this is a false inference from an enormous average of cases which are necessarily remote from any average whatever. And when certain prejudices or weaknesses of mind are added, the mistake multiplies.

Whoever accurately follows, if he can avoid getting bored, the voting of bodies, and considers by themselves individual opinions about the subject, they having remained individual against large majorities and hence worthy of being subjected to a cold and unprejudiced examination, will learn some rare facts. It is especially interesting to study the judgment of the full bench with regard to a case which has been falsely judged; surprisingly often only a single