Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow CHAPTER VIII.: OF CONFUSION OF MIND, CONSIDERED AS AFFORDING EVIDENCE OF DELINQUENCY. - The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 7 (Rationale of Judicial Evidence Part 2)

Return to Title Page for The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 7 (Rationale of Judicial Evidence Part 2)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Law

CHAPTER VIII.: OF CONFUSION OF MIND, CONSIDERED AS AFFORDING EVIDENCE OF DELINQUENCY. - Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 7 (Rationale of Judicial Evidence Part 2) [1843]

Edition used:

The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843). 11 vols. Vol. 7.

Part of: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, 11 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


CHAPTER VIII.

OF CONFUSION OF MIND, CONSIDERED AS AFFORDING EVIDENCE OF DELINQUENCY.

Another modification of subsequential circumstantial evidence is confusion of mind:—confusion, as expressed and betrayed whether by countenance, by discourse, by conduct, or by all three. This may also be considered as a sort of sub-modification of circumstantial evidence; a modification of confessorial evidence: with this difference only:—Confessorial evidence is personal evidence; confusion of mind is real evidence:—The presumed state of mind, the state of mind evidenced by the external indications, is psychological real evidence; the indications themselves, physical real evidence.

Hesitation alone—hesitation without confusion—would be misinterpreted if it were looked upon as an indication of falsehood; much more if of wilful falsehood. Hesitation has for its cause—its most natural and frequent cause—anxiety to shape the narrative by the exact line of truth, accompanied with a difficulty a man experiences in his endeavours to accomplish it. Correct memory, and adequate expression, are both necessary to this end: by the consciousness, or even mere apprehension, of tailure in either article, hesitation may be produced.

The most careless and least scrupulous of witnesses are frequently among the most fluent.

Suspicion, indeed, is not altogether without ground, when, to hesitation, confusion is added. Confusion is the result of consciousness of manifested inconsistency, of inconsistency with itself or with indubitable truths,—a repugnancy which is among the surest indications and proofs of falsehood: but, of any such inconsistency, a man who means nothing but the truth is not in much danger of labouring under any serious apprehension. The truth, and nothing but the truth, is what, by the supposition, he means to hold up to view. Truth cannot be inconsistent with itself: two truths, parts of one and the same complex truth, cannot be inconsistent with each other. Truth, in all its parts, is the one thing, and the only thing, his memory is in search of. In regard to some parts, at any rate, he is singularly unfortunate if he cannot make sure to himself of possessing it: these parts he will at any rate adhere to. Others, of which his hold is not so strong, he will adhere to no otherwise than upon the supposition of their being compatible and consistent with those fundamental stronger ones. Should any inconsistency display itself, he will abandon these weaker points, without difficulty and without confusion, that is, without shame or other fear: having nothing to suffer from the temporary mistake—no point of his own to lose by it.

Confusion affords a presumption, more or less strong, of the fact contested by the party; but not absolutely a conclusive one. It proves alarm; and, in the case in question, the most natural cause of alarm is the apprehension of seeing the contested fact taken for true. But this, though in the sort of case in question the most frequent and natural cause of the alarm, is by no means the only one.

1. It may be, that,—although the fact in question, the fact contested by the party, was not true,—yet some other fact, the declaration of which would in some other way be prejudicial to him, was true: and that the alarm was produced by the apprehension of seeing this other fact brought to light.*

2. It may be, that, in respect of the fact in question (the offence in question,) appearances are against him, notwithstanding his perfect innocence; and the consciousness of this circumstance may be the cause of his confusion.

[* ]Bolingbroke, after his partial pardon and return to England, being suspected of harbouring a person accused of a state crime, his house, and even his bed-chamber, as he was lying in his bed, were searched by the ministers of justice. Traitorous bedfellow with him he had none: a bedfollow, however, he had—a female, whose reputation would have been ruined by the disclosure. Confusion, more or less, he could not but have betrayed. Had the search ended there, this confusion would naturally and properly have been regarded as circumstantial evidence of the crime he was suspected of. His presence of mind saved him from that mischance. Uncovering enough of her person to indicate the sex, without betraying the individual, he preserved himself as well from the imputation of the crime of which he was not guilty, as from the collateral misfortune which that imputation was so near bringing on his head.