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！
e given to our doctrines and their application。 We know very well that we may not hurry。 Wherever people delayed in establishing the right thing and then suddenly tried for it； they went in their haste too far。 This is apparent not only in the situations of life； it is visible； in the very recent hasty conclusions of the Lombrosists； in their very good； but inadequate observations； and unjustified and strained inferences。 We are not to figure the scientific method from these。＇4＇ It is for us to gather facts and to study them。 The drawing of inferences we may leave to our more fortunate successors。 But in the daily routine we may vary this procedure a little。 We draw there _*particular_ inferences from correct and simple observations。 ‘‘From facts to ideas；'' says ttingen。＇5＇ ‘‘The world has for several millenniums tried to subdue matter to preconceptions and the world has failed。 Now the procedure is reversed。'' ‘‘From facts to ideas''there lies our road； let us for once observe the facts of life without prejudice； without maxims built on preconceptions； let us establish them； strip them of all alien character。 Then finally； when we find nothing more in the least doubtful； we may theorize about them； and draw inferences； modestly and with caution。
Every fundamental investigation must first of all establish the
＇1＇ R。 v。 Ihering： Scherz und Ernst in der Jurisprudenz。 Leipzig 1885。
＇2＇ Warnkonig。 Versuch einer Begrndung des Rechtes。 Bonn 1819。
＇3＇ H。 Spitzer： ber das Verhltnis der Philosophie zu den organischen Naturwissensehaften。 Leipzig 1883。
＇4＇ Cf。 Gross's Archiv VIII 89。
＇5＇ A。 v。 ttingen： Moralstatistik。 Erlangen 1882。
nature of its subject matter。 This is the maxim of a book； ‘‘ber die Dummheit''＇1＇ （1886）； one of the wisest ever written。 The same axiomatic proposition must dominate every legal task； but especially every task of criminal law。 It is possible to read thousands upon thousands of testimonies and to make again this identical； fatiguing； contrary observation： The two； witness and judge； have not defined the nature of this subject； they have not determined what they wanted of each other。 The one spoke of one matter； the other of another； but just what the thing really was that was to have been established； the one did not know and the other did not tell him。 But the blame for this defective formulation does not rest with the witnessformulation was the other man's business。
When the real issue is defined the essentially modern and scientific investigation begins。 Ebbinghaus；＇2＇ I believe； has for our purpose defined it best。 It consists in trying to keep constant the complex of conditions demonstrated to be necessary for the realization of a given effect。 It consists in varying these conditions； in isolating one from the other in a numerically determinable order； and finally； in establishing the accompanying changes with regard to the effect； in a quantified or countable order。
I can not here say anything further to show that this is the sole correct method of establishing the necessary principles of our science。 The aim is only to test the practicality of this method in the routine of a criminal case； and to see if it is not； indeed； the only one by which to attain complete and indubitable results。 If it is； it must _*be of use_ not only during the whole trialnot only in the testing of collected evidence； but also in the testing of every individual portion thereof； analyzed into its component elements。
Let us first consider the whole trial。
The _*effect_ is here the evidence of A's guilt。 The complex conditions for its establishment are the collective instruments in getting evidence； the individual conditions are to be established by means of the individual sources of evidencetestimony of witnesses； examination of the premises； obduction； protocol； etc。
_The constantification of conditions_ now consists in standardizing the present instance； thus： Whenever similar circumstances are given； i。 e。： the same instruments of evidence are present； the evidence of guilt is established。 Now the accompanying changes with regard to the effect； i。 e。： proof of guilt through evidence； have to
＇1＇ Erdmann ber die Dummheit。 1886。
＇2＇ Ebbinghaus： ber das Gedchtniss。 Leipzig 1885。
be testedtherefore the individual conditionsi。e。： the individual sources of evidence have to be established and their values to be determined and _*varied_。 Finally； the accompanying change in effect （conviction by evidence） is to be tested。 The last procedure requires discussion； the rest is self evident。 In our business isolation is comparatively easy； inasmuch as any individual statement； any visual impression； any effect； etc。； may be abstracted without difficulty。 Much harder is the determination of its value。 If； however； we clearly recognize that it is necessary to express the exact value of each particular source of evidence； and that the task is only to determine comparative valuation； the possibility of such a thing； in at least a sufficiently close degree of certainty； must be granted。 The valuation must be made in respect of two things（1） its _*reliability_ （subjective and relative）； （2） its _*significance_ （objective and absolute）。 On the one hand； the value of the evidence itself must be tested according to the appraisement of the person who presents it and of the conditions under which he is important； on the other； what influence evidence accepted as reliable can exercise upon the _*effect_； considered in and for itself。 So then； when a testimony is being considered； it must first be determined whether the witness was able and willing to speak the truth； and further； what the importance of the testimony may be in terms of the changes it may cause in the _*organization_ of the case。
Of greatest importance and most difficult is the variation of conditions and the establishment of the changes thereby generated； with regard to the _*effect_；i。 e。： the critical interpretation of the material in hand。 Applied to a case； the problem presents itself in this wise： I consider each detail of evidence by itself and cleared of all others； and I vary it as often as it is objectively possible to do so。 Thus I suppose that each statement of the witness might be a lie； entirely or in part； it might be incorrect observation； false inference； etc。and then I ask myself： Does the evidence of guilt； the establishment of an especial trial； now remain just？ If not； is it just under other and related possible circumstances？ Am I in possession of these circumstances？ If now the degree of apparent truth is so far tested that these variations may enter and the accusation still remain just； the defendant is convicted： but only under these circumstances。
The same procedure here required for the conduct of a complete trial； is to be followed also； in miniature； in the production of particulars of evidence。 Let us again construe an instance。 The _*effect_ now is the establishment of the objective correctness of some particular point （made by statements of witnesses； looks； etc。）。 The _*complex of conditions_ consists in the collection of these influences which migh