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！
his having stolen what has not been found upon him。 But though this is generally the case； it might occur that the thief wants to assume the guilt of another person； and hence naturally can confess only to what he is accused of； inasmuch as he either has insufficient or no evidence whatever of his guilt for the rest of the crime。
Another fairly clear reason for partial confession； is shown in the confession to a certain degree of malicious intent； as the denial of the intent to kill。 If this is made by a person who may be supposed to know the legal situation； either because of earlier experience or for other reasons； there is sufficient justification for doubting the honesty of his confession。 Most of such cases belong to the numerous class in which the defendant confesses to a series of facts or a number of things； and denies a few of them without any apparent reason； he may confess to a dozen objects used in an assault and simply refuse to discuss two probably quite insignificant ones。 If such a case comes up for judgment to the full bench； half the judges say that since he has stolen twelve he must have taken the other two； and the other half say that since he has confessed to twelve he would have confessed to the other two if he had taken them。 Generally speaking； both sides are right； one inference is as justified as the other。 As a rule； such cases do not repay a great deal of troublesome examination； inasmuch as the question of A's having stolen twelve or fourteen objects can little affect either his guilt or his sentence。 But it is to be remembered that it is never indifferent whether a man pleads guilty or not guilty； and later on； especially in another case； it may be quite the reverse of indifferent whether a man is condemned because of a matter indifferent to…day。 Suppose that the denied theft was of a worthless but characteristic thing； e。 g。 an old prayer…book。 If now the thief is again suspected of a robbery which he denies and the theft is again that of an old prayerbook； then it is not indifferent as a matter of proof whether the man was condemned for stealing a prayer…book or not。 If he was so condemned； there will already be remarks about； ‘‘a certain passion for old prayer…books；'' and the man will be suspected of the second theft。
In regard to the possession of stolen goods； such a sentence may have similar significance。 I recall a case in which several people were sentenced for the theft of a so…called fokos （a Hungarian cane with a head like an ax）。 Later a fokos was used in murder in the same region and the first suspicion of the crime was attached to the thief； who might； because of his early crime； have been in possession of a fokos。 Now suppose that the man had confessed to theft of everything but the fokos； and that he had been condemned on the basis of the confession； the fact would be of far…reaching significance in the present case。 Of course it is not intended that the old case is to be tried again before the new。 That would be a difficult job after the lapse of some time； and in addition； would be of little use； for everybody recalls the old judgment anyway and supposes that the circumstances must have been such as to show the man guilty。 If a man is once sentenced for something he has not confessed to； the stigma remains no matter how the facts may be against it。
Experience has shown that the victims of theft count everything stolen that they do not discover at the first glance。 And it might have been lost long before the theft； or have been stolen at an earlier or a later time。 For this reason it often happens that servants； and even the children of the house or other frequenters； take the robbery as an opportunity for explaining the disappearance of things they are responsible for or steal afresh and blame it upon ‘‘the thief。'' The quantity stolen is generally exaggerated； moreover； in order to excite universal sympathy and perhaps to invoke help。 In general； we must hold that there is no psychological reason that a confessor should deny anything the confession of which can bring him no additional harm。 The last point must be carefully treated； for it requires taking the attitude of the accused and not of the examiner。 It is the former's information and view…point that must be studied； and it often contains the most perverted view…points； e。 g。； one man denies out of mere obstinacy because he believes that his guilt is increased by this or that fact。 The proposition： who has stolen one thing； has also stolen the rest； has slight justification。
（c） If a denying fellow…criminal is accused by a confession； the interpretation of the latter becomes difficult。 First of all； the pure kernel of the confession must be brought to light； and everything set aside that might serve to free the confessor and involve the other in guilt。 This portion of the work is comparatively the easiest； inasmuch as it depends upon the circumstances of the crime。 It is more difficult to determine what degree of crime the confessor attached to himself by accusing also the other man； because clearness can be reached in such a case only by working out the situation from beginning to end in two directions； first； by studying it without reference to the fellow…criminal； second； with such reference。 The complete elimination of the additional circumstance is exceedingly troublesome because it requires the complete control of the material and because it is always psychologically difficult so to exclude an event already known in its development and inference as to be able to formulate a theory quite without reference to it。
If this is really accomplished and some positive fact is established in the self…accusation； the question becomes one of finding the value seen by the confessor in blaming himself together with his fellow。 Revenge； hatred； jealousy； envy； anger； suspicion； and other passions will be the forces in which this value will be found。 One man brings his ancient comrade into jeopardy in revenge for the latter's injustice in the division of the booty； or in deliberate anger at the commission of some dangerous stupidity in a burglary。 Again； it often happens that he or she； through jealousy； accuses her or him in order that the other may be also imprisoned； and so not become disloyal。 Business jealousy； again； is as influential as the attempt to prevent another from disposing of some hidden booty； or from carrying out by himself some robbery planned in partnership。 These motives are not always easy to discover but are conceivable。 There are also cases； not at all rare； in which the ordinary man is fully lacking in comprehension of ‘‘the substitute value；'' which makes him confess the complicity of his fellow。 I am going to offer just one example； and inasmuch as the persons concerned are long since dead； will； by way of exception； mention their names and the improbability of their stories。 In 1879 an old man； Blasius Kern； was found one morning completely snowed over and with a serious wound in the head。 There was no possible suspicion of robbery as motive of the murder； inasmuch as the man was on his way home drunk； as usual； and it was supposed that he had fallen down and had smashed his sk