Criminal Psychology by Hans Gross (best book recommendations .TXT) 📕

learned.

 

[1] Le Brun: Conferences sur l’Expression. 1820.

Reich: Die Gestalt des Menschen und deren Beziehung zum Seelenleben.

Heidelberg 1878.

P. Mantegazza. Physiognomik u. Mimik. Leipzig 1890.

Duchenne: Mechanismus des Menschlichen Physiognomie. 1862.

Skraup: Katechismus der Mimik. Leipzig 1892.

H. Magnus: Die Sprache der Augen.

Gessmann: Katechismus der Gesichtslesekunst. Berlin 1896.

A. Sehebest: Rede u. Geberde. Leipzig 1861.

Engel: Ideen zu einer Mimik. Berlin 1785.

G. Schneider: Die tierische Wille. 1880.

K. Miehel: Die Geberdensprache. K61n 1886.

Wundt: Grundz<u:>ge, etc. Leipzig 1894.

C. Lange: <U:>ber Gemutsbewegungen. 1887.

Giraudet: Mimique, Physiognomie et Gestes. Paris 1895.

A. Mosso: Die Furcht. 1889.

D. A. Baer: Der Verbreeher. Leipzig 1893.

Wiener. Die geistige Welt.

Lotze. Medizinisehe Psychologie.

Th. Waitz. Anthropologie der Naturv<o:>lker. Leipzig 1877.

Lelut: Physiologie de la Pens<e’>e.

Monro: Remarks on Sanity.

C. F. Heusinger: Grundriss der physiologischen u. psychologisehen Anthropologie. Eisenach 1829.

Herbart: Psychologische Untersuchung. G<o:>ttingen 1839.

Comte: Systeme de Philosophie Positive. Paris 1824.

T. Meynert: Mechanik der Physiognomik. 1888.

F. Goltz: <U:>ber Moderne Phrenologie. Deutsehe Rundschau Nov. - Dec.

1885.

H. Hughes: Die Mimik des Menschen auf Grund voluntariseher Psychologie Frankfurt a. M. 1900.

A. Bor<e’>e: Physiognom. Studien. Stuttgart 1899.

 

<p 86>

Such statements, as ways of disposing of things, occur regularly wherever there is a good deal of work to do; people do not like to bother with troublesome problems and therefore call them worthless.

But whoever is in earnest and is not averse to a little study will get much benefit from intensive application to this discipline in relation to his profession.

 

The right of physiognomies to the status of an independent science is to some degree established in the oft-repeated dictum that whatever is valid in its simplest outline must be capable of extension and development. No man doubts that there are intelligent faces and foolish ones, kind ones and cruel ones, and if this assertion is admitted as it stands it must follow that still other faces may be distinguished so that it is possible to read a certain number of spiritual qualities from the face. And inasmuch as nobody can indicate the point at which this reading of features must cease, the door is opened to examination, observation and the collection of material. Then, if one bewares of voluntary mistakes, of exaggeration and unfounded assertion, if one builds only upon actual and carefully observed facts, an important and well-grounded discipline must ensue.

 

The exceptionally acute psychiatrist Meynert shows[1] how physiognomics depends on irradiation and parallel images. He shows what a large amount of material having physiognomical contents we keep in mind. Completely valueless as are the fixed forms by which mankind judges the voluntary acts of its individual members, they point to the universal conclusion that it is proper to infer from the voluntary acts of a person whose features correspond to those of another the voluntary acts of the other. One of Hans Virchow’s very detailed physiognomical observations concerning the expression of interest in the eyes by means of the pupil, has very considerable physiognomical value. The pupil, he believes, is the gate through which our glance passes into the inner life of our neighbor; the psychical is already close at hand with the word “inner.” How this occurs, why rather this and not another muscle is innervated in the development of a certain process, we do not know, but our ignorance does not matter, since ultimately a man might split his head thinking why we do not hear with our eyes and see with our ears. But to some extent we have made observable progress in this matter. As far back as 1840 J. M<u:>ller[2] wrote: “The reasons are unknown why various psychoses make use of different groups of nerves or why [1] Psychiatrie. Vienna 1884.

 

[2] J. M<u:>ller: Handbuch der Physiologie des Menschen. 1840.

 

<p 87>

certain facial muscles are related to certain passions.” Gratiolet[1]

thought it necessary forty years ago to deny that muscles were developed merely for the purpose of expression. Almost contemporaneously Piderit knew that expressive muscular movements refer partly to imaginary objects and partly to imaginary sense impressions.

In this fact lies the key to the meaning of all expressive muscular movements. Darwin’s epoch-making book on the expressions of the emotions finally established the matter so completely and firmly, that we may declare ourselves in possession of enough material for our purpose to make it possible to carry our studies further. The study of this book of Darwin’s I believe absolutely necessary to each criminalist—for he meets in every direction, expositions and explanations that are related to cases he has already experienced in practice or is sure to experience. I present here only a few of Darwin’s most important notes and observations in order to demonstrate their utility for our purpose.

 

As subjects for study he recommends children because they permit forms of expression to appear vigorously and without constraint; lunatics, because they are subject to strong passions without control; galvanized persons, in order to facilitate the muscles involved, and finally, to establish the identity of expression among all races of men and beasts. Of these objects only children are important for our purpose. The others either are far removed from our sphere of activity, or have only theoretic value. I should, however, like to add to the subjects of observation another, viz., the simple unstudied persons, peasants and such otherwise unspoiled individuals whom we may believe innocent of all intention to play a comedy with us. We can learn much from such people and from children.

And it is to be believed that in studying them we are studying not a special class but are establishing a generally valid paradigm of the whole of mankind. Children have the same features as adults only clearer and simpler. For, suppose we consider any one of Darwin’s dicta,—e. g., that in the expression of anger and indignation the eyes shine, respiration becomes more rapid and intense, the nostrils are somewhat raised, the look misses the opponent,—

these so intensely characteristic indices occur equally in the child and the adult. Neither shows more or fewer, and once we have defined them in the child we have done it for the adult also. Once the physiognomy of children and simple people has been studied, [1] L. P. Gratiolet: De la Physiognomie et des Mouvements d’Expression. Paris 1865.

 

<p 88>

the further study of different kinds of people is no longer difficult; there is only the intentional and customary masking of expression to look out for; for the rest, the already acquired principles, mutandis mutatis, are to be used.

 

Darwin posits three general principles on which most expressions and gestures are to be explained. They are briefly: I. The principle of purposeful associated habits.

 

II. The principle of contradication.

 

III. The principle of the direct activity of the nervous system.

 

With regard to the first. When, in the course of a long series of generations, any desire, experience, or disinclination, etc., has led to some voluntary action, then, as often as the same or any analogous associated experience is undergone, there will arise a tendency to the realization of a similar action. This action may no longer have any use but is inherited and generally becomes a mere reflex.

 

This becomes clearer when one notices how often habit facilitates very complex action:—the habits of animals; the high steps of horses; the pointing of pointers; the sucking of calves, etc. It is difficult for us in falling to make opposite movements to stretching out the arms, even in bed; we draw on our gloves unconsciously.

Gratiolet says: “Whoever energetically denies some point, etc., shuts his eyes; if he assents he nods and opens his eyes wide. Whoever describes a terrible thing shuts his eyes and shakes his head; whoever looks closely raises his eyebrows. In the attempt to think the same thing is done or the eyebrows are contracted—

both make the glance keener. Thence follows the reflex activity.”

 

With regard to the second. Dogs who are quarrelling with cats assume the appearance of battle—if they are kindly-minded they do the opposite, although this serves no purpose. M. Taylor[1] says, that the gesture language of the Cistercians depends considerably on antithesis; e. g., shrugging the shoulders is the opposite of firmness, immovability.

 

With regard to the direct activity of the nervous system, examples are paling, trembling (fear, terror, pain, cold, fever, horror, joy), palpitation of the heart, blushing, perspiring, exertion of strength, tears, pulling the hair, urinating, etc. With these subdivisions it will be possible to find some thoroughfare and to classify every phenomenon.

 

We want to discuss a few more particulars in the light of Darwin’s [1] Taylor: Early History of Mankind.

 

<p 89>

examples. He warns us, first of all, against seeing[1] certain muscle movements as the result of emotional excitement, because they were looked for. There are countless habits, especially among the movements of the features, which happen accidentally or as the result of some passing pain and which have no significance. Such movements are often of the greatest clearness, and do not permit the unexperienced observer to doubt that they have important meanings, although they have no relation whatever to any emotional condition.

Even if it is agreed only to depend on changes of the whole face; already established as having a definite meaning, there is still danger of making mistakes, because well accredited facial conditions may occur in another way (as matters of habit, nervous disturbances, wounds, etc.). Hence in this matter, too, care and attention are required; for if we make use of any one of the Darwinian norms, as, for example, that the eyes are closed when we do not want to see a thing or when we dislike it, we still must grant that there are people to whom it has become habitual to close their eyes under other and even opposed conditions.

 

We must grant that, with the exception of such cases, the phenomena are significant during examinations, as when we show the accused a very effective piece of evidence, (e. g.: a comparison of handwritings which is evidential,) and he closes his eyes. The act is then characteristic and of importance, particularly when his words are intended to contest the meaning of the object in question.

The contradiction between the movement of his eyes and his words is then suggestive enough. The same occurs when the accused is shown the various possibilities that lie before him—the movement of the examination, the correlations and consequences.

If he finds them dangerous, he closes his eyes. So with witnesses also; when one of them, e. g., deposes to more, and more harmfully, than according to our own notion he can explain, he will close his eyes, though perhaps for an instant only, if the inevitable consequences of his deposition are expounded to him. If he closes his eyes he has probably said too much, and the proper moment must not be missed to appeal to his conscience and to prevent more exaggerated and irresponsible assertions.

 

This form of closing the eyes is not to be confused with the performances of persons who want to understand the importance of their depositions and to collect their senses, or who desire to review [1] J. Reid: The Muscular Sense. Journal of Mental Science, XLVII, 510.

 

<p 90>

the story mentally and consider its certainty. These two forms of closing the eyes are different: the first, which wants to shut out the consequences of testimony, is much shorter; the latter longer, because it requires a good deal of time to collect one’s senses and to consider a problem. The first, moreover, is accompanied by a perceivable expression of fear, while the latter is manifest only by its duration; what is most important is a characteristic contemporary and perceivable defensive movement of the hand, and this occurs only in