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！
es of importance； where more than one person is involved。 It happens； perhaps； that only one or two are captured； and they assume all the guilt； e。 g。； in cases of larceny； brawls； rioting； etc。 I repeat： the suggestive power of a confession is great and it is hence really not easy to exclude its influence and to consider the balance of the evidence on its merits；but this must be done if one is not to deceive oneself。
Dealing with the witness is still more ticklish； inasmuch as to the difficulties with them； is added the difficulties with oneself。 The simplest thing would be to deny the existence of a confession； and
＇1＇ Cf。 above； the case of the ‘‘cannibal'' Bratuscha。
thus to get the witness to speak without prejudice。 But aside from the fact of its impossibility as a lie； each examination of a witness would have to be a comedy and that would in many cases be impossible as the witness might already know that the accused had confessed。 The only thing to be done； especially when it is permissible for other reasons； is to tell the witness that a confession exists and to call to his attention that it is _*not_ yet evidence； and finally and above all to keep one's head and to prevent the witness from presenting his evidence from the point of view of the already…established。 In this regard it can not be sufficiently demonstrated that the coloring of a true bill comes much less from the witness than from the judge。 The most excited witness can be brought by the judge to a sober and useful point of view； and conversely； the most calm witness may utter the most misleading testimony if the judge abandons in any way the safe bottom of the indubitably established fact。
Very intelligent witnesses （they are not confined to the educated classes） may be dealt with constructively and be told after their depositions that the case is to be considered as if there were no confession whatever。 There is an astonishing number of people especially among the peasantswho are amenable to such considerations and willingly follow if they are led on with confidence。 In such a case it is necessary to analyze the testimony into its elements。 This analysis is most difficult and important since it must be determined what； taken in itself； is an element； materially； not formally； and what merely appears to be a unit。 Suppose that during a great brawl a man was stabbed and that A confesses to the stabbing。 Now a witness testified that A had first uttered a threat； then had jumped into the brawl； felt in his bag； and left the crowd； and that in the interval between A's entering and leaving； the stabbing occurred。 In this simple case the various incidents must be evaluated； and each must be considered by itself。 So we considerSuppose A had not confessed； what would the threat have counted for？ Might it not have been meant for the assailants of the injured man？ May his feeling in the bag not be interpreted in another fashion？ Must he have felt for a knife only？ Was there time enough to open it and to stab？ Might the man not have been already wounded by that time？ We might then conclude that all the evidence about A contained nothing against himbut if we relate it to the confession； then this evidence is almost equal to direct evidence of A's crime。
But if individual sense…perceptions are mingled with conclusions； and if other equivalent perceptions have to be considered； which occurred perhaps to other people； then the analysis is hardly so simple； yet it must be made。
In dealing with less intelligent people； with whom this construction cannot be performed； one must be satisfied with general rules。 By demanding complete accuracy and insisting； in any event； on the ratio sciendi； one may generally succeed in turning a perception； uncertain with regard to any individual； into a trustworthy one with regard to the confessor。 It happens comparatively seldom that untrue confessions are discovered； but once this does occur； and the trouble is taken to subject the given evidence to a critical comparison； the manner of adaptation of the evidence to the confession may easily be discovered。 The witnesses were altogether unwilling to tell any falsehood and the judge was equally eager to establish the truth； nevertheless the issue must have received considerable perversion in order to fix the guilt on the confessor。 Such examinations are so instructive that the opportunity to make them should never be missed。 All the testimony presents a typical picture。 The evidence is consistent with the theory that the real confessor was guilty； but it is also consistent with the theory that the real criminal was guilty； but some details must be altered； often very many。 If there is an opportunity to hear the same witnesses again； the procedure becomes still more instructive。 The witnesses （supposing they want honestly to tell the truth） naturally confirm the evidence as it points to the second； more real criminal； and if an explanation is asked for the statements that pointed to the ‘‘confessor；'' the answers make it indubitably evident； that their incorrectness came as without intention； the circumstance that a confession had been made acted as a suggestion。＇1＇
Conditions similar to confessional circumstances arise when other types of persuasive evidence are gathered； which have the same impressive influence as confessions。 In such cases the judge's task is easier than the witness's； since he need not tell them of evidence already at hand。 How very much people allow themselves to be influenced by antecedent grounds of suspicion is a matter of daily observation。 One example will suffice。 An intelligent man was attacked at night and wounded。 On the basis of his description
＇1＇ We must not overlook those cases in which false confessions are the results of disease； vivid dreams； and toxications； especially toxication by coal…gas。 People so poisoned； but saved from death； claim frequently to have been guilty of murder （Hofman。 Gerichtliche Medizin； p。 676）。
an individual was arrested。 On the next day the suspect was brought before the man for identification。 He identified the man with certainty； but inasmuch as his description did not quite hit off the suspect he was asked the reason for his certainty。 ‘‘Oh； you certainly would not have brought him here if he were not the right man；'' was the astonishing reply。 Simply because the suspect was arrested on the story of the wounded man and brought before him in prison garb； the latter thought he saw such corroboration for his data as to make the identification certaina pure which did not at all occur to him in connection with the vivid impression of what he saw。 I believe that to keep going with merely what the criminalist knows about the matter； belongs to his most difficult tasks。
Section 9。 （g） Interest。
Anybody who means to work honestly must strive to awaken and to sustain the interest of his collaborators。 A judge's duty is to present his associates material； well…arranged； systematic； and exhaustive； but not redundant； and to be himself well and minutely informed concerning the case。 Whoever so proceeds may be certain in even the most ordinary and simplest cases； o