The Confessions of an Innocent Man

The Confessions of an Innocent Man

            Mom:   “Did you steal the money?”

            Kid:     “What are you talking about?”

            Mom:   “The banknote on my desk.”

            Kid:     “No, it’s not me.”

            Mom:   “Don’t lie to me. I will forgive you if you tell me the truth, not if you lie.”

            Kid:     “I didn’t.”

            Mom:   “You say that again, you’ll be grounded.”

            The kid broke into tears.

            Kid:     “Sorry, mama.”

            Mom:   “Where’s the money now? You spent it?”

            The kid just kept crying.

            Mom:   “How did you spend it? Who did you give it to? Tell me.”

            Kid:     “I didn’t take the money.”

            Mom gave the kid a stern look.

            Kid:     “Sorry, mama. I bought chocolate with it.”

Did the kid do it?  There’s only one thing I’m sure.  The mom definitely thought so.

Confessions mean a lot to us, and it goes deep into our instincts, and I suspect it’s in the blood of every race. Perhaps, it’s the most primitive way of justice, that is, by way of getting a confession.  In the tribal age, there was no DNA test, no fingerprint database or forensic science of any sort, and there was no law enforcement agents, no detectives, no whatsoever.  How could we establish somebody’s guilt? Words, or more precisely, accusations and confessions. You did it, and now you must admit it! Our ancestors would be satisfied if somebody admitted a killing, he actually did it. They were right, at least most of the time they were.  Why would anyone confess to a crime he did not commit?  We were hardwired to think that, and we still are.  And, our modern legal system still relies on that.

Common practice in case law is that an accused always has a chance to plead guilty, and before he/she is convicted, a set of facts has to be agreed to establish his/her guilt as a measure to rule out false confessions.   The problem is, if someone is determined to plead guilty, he would agree to or even make up stories to incriminate himself.  Think chocolate in the “mom and kid” story. 

As our societies and minds have become more sophisticated now, there can be a lot of reasons for a man to make a false confession. First, the legal system encourages guilty pleas by showing leniency to confessors in the form of a discount in sentencing. Discount is a luring word. You buy something at the original price of $1000, it’s expensive; you buy the same thing marked $2000 in price with a 50% discount, it’s excellent bargain.  So, a calculated person would think that he might as well lose the case, then why not opting for the discount? One-third discount is a lot, psychologically.  The rationale of granting this reduction is pretty dated as well, showing of remorse.  If somebody confesses without being accused, it’s very likely out of remorse.  But when somebody was arrested and taken to court and then he pleaded guilty, that may not involve remorse or regret.  He might just be too tired to fight or defend, or he just bought the discount.  A company gives discounts to boost sales;  likewise, the court gives discounts to boost guilty pleas.  That is an administrative necessity, though.  Our society cannot afford lengthy trials for every petty case, for we never want to spend that much time and resources.  “You’re remorseful, defendant.  I grant you full discount,” says the judge.  “You saved me 20 sitting hours. Now you serve 20 weeks less,” he didn’t say.

Even when a person pops out to admit wrongdoings out of the blues, it doesn’t mean he/she has done what they claimed.  Actually, it can be even more suspicious.  Why would anyone admit to a crime when he/she was undetected? There can be a lot of reasons too, say to cover up for loved ones, or to simply try gaining attention by confessing to a hideous crime. Another major cause of false confession is, as we all already know, interrogation.

The law enforcement always finds ways in getting confessions, and it has been done for centuries. In the old day, they relied on violence and torture.  They just beat the guy until he talked and signed.   As we became more ‘humane’, the cops used non-physical kinds of coercion, and play new tricks on the suspect. They threat and induce and lie to the arrested to get what they want to hear. You think you are smarter than that? Think again. Our minds play a lot of tricks on us when we are emotional. As a bystander, you can calmly figure out the truth and the best response to a situation.  What if you were in the hot seat?  Under all sort of pressure and relentless questioning, seeing the nostalgic “good-cop, bad-cop” act, in the midst of the grotesque air in an interrogation room, will you break down?  No?  Because you know what game they’re playing, right? What if you were arrested in Russia? Held in custody by a junta? What if you were indeed at the crime scene and it happened so fast and were so chaotic that you had trouble remember what exactly you had done?  Could you maintain your innocence?

We don’t have a mind of steel, far from it. Breaking down somebody doesn’t necessarily mean getting the truth.  The police never learned this, or they just care about getting higher detection and conviction stats.  Getting someone to say yes to something doesn’t mean he/she truly agrees to it.  And that’s why “leading questions” are not allowed in court. However, it’s commonplace in a police station.  It gets to its worst with the child victims.

The Danish movie Jagten explores on this. A kindergarten girl for some reason made a phony claim to the headmistress that a school worker showed her his genitals, which opened up a full-scale investigation.  An interviewer would then ask the girl if she saw white fluid coming out from the suspect’s penis, and would take the blank look of the girl as a positive reply. Emergency meetings were held for the parents of all kids in the kindergarten, and the kids were interviewed.  The result was scary.  Many of the kids, male and female, had apparently been molested by this same man.  They even gave the same account of the details of a hidden basement in the man’s house, except when the police raided the house, they found that there was no basement at all.  I imagine the interviews were made up of leading questions after leading questions.  Children are usually inclined to say yes when they are not sure.  Even if they were sure, after a long session of questioning and suggesting they won’t be anymore.  The children were lying, but it was the adults who made them lie. The adults wanted to get answers they wanted to hear, and they got them. And then they heard something they didn’t want to hear, they would think the children are just too embarrassed or scared to tell the truth.

Every time we finish off a sentence for someone, we are putting words in his/her mouth. The interrogators think the children can’t articulate, so they help them to put their thoughts into comprehensible words.  The problem is, the interrogators are prejudiced. They often have their version of ‘truth’ before asking the alleged victims.  Then with tactful question, they get what they want to hear from the children’s mouths. Essentially, the children spoke the interrogators’ minds instead of their own.  And that means disaster to the accused.  Most people think children don’t lie despite that fact that they know their own children are quite capable of lying to them, say about a missing coin, or a broken vase.  When it comes to sophisticated claims like seeing some white fluid, it just cannot be a lie.  Then it becomes a piece of bullet-proof evidence.  Nobody would believe in the accused. His family might also begin to doubt him. What can a man do when he is condemned by all? Will he keep denying when he feels he’s already crucified and nobody will ever believe in him anymore? Maybe he would just kneel down and beg for mercy, and then all doubts would be gone. He’s the guy. He may actually begin to think he might have done it.  In deep despair and depression, his mind would play tricks on him, conjuring up memories that had never existed in his brain before.  Our minds are weak. When we feel all people are pointing their fingers at us, we begin to doubt ourselves. An experienced interrogator is just capable of giving you this exact feeling.  And then he will make you think confession your only salvation.

           

           

The Prejudiced Man

The Prejudiced Man

How well do you think you can detect a lie?  How well do you think you can read people?  If you think you are good, beware!

In very early stages of our lives we found out that other people didn’t think the same like us, and we wondered what were in those brains attached to other bodies.  And on those occasions when we were teased and tricked by another kid we learned to our dismay that we never knew what’s in the other kid’s mind.  Then we lived with that.  We slowly picked up those subtle clues about the emotion and the true intention of somebody else.  When she had that look, she was happy, upset, angry, sympathetic, jealous, indifferent, contemptuous, or… deceitful.  We also learned how to read between the lines, how to decipher body languages, and what were the ‘tells’ when somebody didn’t speak the truth.

And then we have some success.  “I always know she’s up to something.  She’s acts dubiously.”  “I’ve told you he admired you.  Now you know what I meant.”  “That guy was lying.  I could tell it in his eyes.” And so on and so on.  It seems like in the blinding mist we have somehow found our bearing, and the most remarkable is, we’ve found it by ourselves, our wit, our experience, our wisdom.

And that, is a huge bias, my friend.  We all want to be in control, at least in our own lives.  It would drive us nuts if everything were unpredictable like a dice roll.  That’s why fortune telling is one of our oldest businesses, along with prostitution, and it never faded away.  We want to be in the know, in a world vastly governed by randomness.  People are largely unpredictable, sometimes even by themselves.  It’s really comforting now that we can read them somehow.  The success we had in this respect brings us too much satisfaction that it blinded us from our equally frequent failures.  We ignored those times we misread people, unless we paid big prices for our failures.  If we are unpunished, we forget. 

Yes, our selective memory works this way.  We’re getting better and better, reflecting on the successful reads, while cheerfully ignoring misreads.  Soon we became over-confident.  Arrogance slipped in.  I am the complex and subtle being in this world, and you are skin-deep, nothing more than your facial expression or words suggest.  If you don’t understand me, you are stupid, or I am complex.  If I don’t understand you, you are stupid, or too complicated. It’s something like the “if I win, I’m good; if I lose, I’m unlucky” mentality.  That’s prejudice.

Ironically, our justice system relies on this same prejudice.  Judges think they can read people.  They say they can tell somebody’s lying by his demeanor.  They say an alleged victim is credible because she wept genuinely at the witness stand.  Judges and juries are seen as some effective lie detectors.  Truth is, people behave very differently when facing the same situation.  Some may be always uneasy speaking out, and that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s lying.  Some may be exceptionally calm when being framed up, and that doesn’t mean he’s guilty.  One of the most respectable judges in the territory once said, “I accept her evidence because if she was acting, she would have been a phenomenal actress.”  It looks like there was one judge who knew the game of justice and his own limits, and more remarkably, he was willing to speak it out. 

Judges are professional liars in a way.  They pretend that they can read people. But they have to.  At the end of the day they will be the ones saying “guilty” or “not guilty”, and they can’t vote “abstention”.  It’s not their fault.  They also have to make a living, and all the society can best have is some justice.  Complete justice is naivety.  We can’t complain.

However, as a common man, outside the court of law, I implore you this. Don’t be a goddamned judge.  Try not to judge people that readily.  We are getting better with time, but not quite as good as we think we are.  Wrong judgments cost us, dearly sometimes.  Stay foolish.  For the moment we think we are wise, foolishness begins.

走音的藝術

走音的藝術                胡漢

哥哥的歌聲無疑有一種懾人的魅力，原因總是說不上來，最近重聽之下，總算找到點端倪。首先，他的唱功不是很好，沒有陳奕迅般的雄厚，也沒有張敬軒般的細緻，也沒有很廣濶的音域。其次，他的音準有時也不是很好，他唱低音時用力時常常都走音，用音樂的術語，是sharp了很多。而且，他的節拍有時也不準，時快時慢，有時甚至會擾亂伴奏者。

這樣一個充滿缺點的歌手，吸引力到底在哪裡？先說第三點，很多歌手在現場表演時都會即興地加快或拖慢，但哥哥改變節奏時總是很隨意，有時會在你沒有預計的地方突然加快，有時根本一整句都稍稍偏離節拍。他的拍子是不能在樂譜上記錄的，是獨有的「張國榮節奏」，唯有用心地聽才能感受到。

至於哥哥的走音，並不是好像阿嬌高音上不到而flat，也未曾好像黎明不懂得轉假聲而破音，而是他注入了過多的感情力量，音不自覺地升高了。音準上的錯誤，在嚴格的古典音樂世界裡是不允許的，但他並不屬於那個世界，而這正是哥哥最特別的地方：一首歌裡最能流露出感情的地方，就正正在那幾個似乎唱錯了的音。

我相信他沒有受過正統的聲音訓練的，他用聲的方法是獨有的、是他自創的，是自然而有力度的聲音，其實和他平常講話（至少在電影裡）的聲線是差不多的。從他口中唱出的歌詞，就好像電影對白譜上了音階一般。他就是這樣一個真摯的人，舞台上舞台下都是一樣、鏡頭前鏡頭得也是一樣，是個全然的藝術家。有次現場表演，他唱錯了一句歌詞後，立即把樂隊叫停，說：「對不起，要重新開始過，我唱錯了歌詞，不完美。」這個人自然中帶着認真和執着，溫柔中帶着孤寂和一點點的自戀。

我們愛他不是因為他完美，而是因為他的種種的缺點，他的缺陷就的他最美麗的地方。陳奕迅的音樂底子太好了，要扮他走音是扮不來的，而事實上沒有人可以扮得像他，即使扮到他的台風，也沒有可能扮到他的聲線，捕捉到他的靈魂。因為，哥哥是獨有的，永遠只有一個。

伯樂與千里馬

伯樂與千里馬           

「世有伯樂，然後有千里馬；千里馬常有，而伯樂不常有。」人才很多，而具慧眼懂得賞識人才者少。筆者傾向相信這是真的，但這真的是件壞事嗎？

人類馴馬的歷史或許太久了，令我們忘了馬兒本來就不是人的財產，不是運輸、戰爭、或者賽馬的工具，而是有血有肉的野生動物。野生的馬群覓水草而食，在原野上自由地奔馳，一旦成為養馬，即被繫上馬鞍、釘上鐵蹄、困於馬廄之中。被看中的千里馬固然比其他的養馬得到較佳的待遇，例如被餵以足夠和較好的飼料，但代價可大了：在主人的鞭撻下，牠必須發揮「日行千里」的腳力，更有可能要當戰馬，與戰士一起浴血沙場。況且，人類喜歡追求名聲，馬兒呢？牠們渴望成為名馬，還是渴望無拘束的生活？我不是馬，答案我不知道。我只知道野馬萬年以來在野外馳騁，在獅子和狼群的追捕下發揮出體能的極限，但就從沒有被鞭子打過。千里馬始終還是奴隸，極其量是比其他養馬高級的奴隸而已。

至於人才呢？我時常幻想，諸葛亮如果沒有遇上劉備，沒有「三顧草廬」，歷史會變成怎樣。也許，諸葛亮終生不會出仕，像他老師「好好先生」司馬徽般始終是山林隱士，繼續與朋友遊戲於山水之間，最後得享天年。江山呢？沒有了諸葛軍師，也許曹操早已一統全國，司馬氏的天下，或許就成了曹氏的天下。曹操的後人，好像沒有司馬懿後人的智商問題，也許就能開創出漢唐之間的另一個盛世。

科學與殺戳

科學與殺戮                胡漢

科技和戰爭從來都是密不可分的。很多時候新發明的科技會先列為國家機密，供軍事和國防之用，過了若干時間才流入民間。例如，戰機在戰場上的使用，就先於民用航空的普及；又如電腦、互聯網等都是軍方首先使用。所謂的軍事競賽，其實就是錢和科技的競賽：一個國家有能力購買或製造較多的武器，並且發展較先進的軍事技術，便能在競賽中領先。

有時候，一些看似完全與軍事無關的科學發展，最終竟促成了新一代武器的研發，連科學家本身亦始料未及。其中最著名的莫過於愛因斯坦的相對論，特別是e = mc²公式的應用，促成了核彈的發明。對於那兩枚投落日本的核彈所造成的死傷，令愛因斯坦痛心疾首。

較為鮮為人知的，是達爾文的進化論也和二戰有莫大的關係。在進化論發表之前，從來沒有人想像過人是從猴子「進化」而成的，這個劃時代的新理論，對十九世紀的學術界帶來了很大的衝擊。當時人們還沒有基因的概念，也不知道甚麼是DNA，而DNA根本在達爾文死後才漸為科學家所理解。達爾文到過地球上很多物種豐富的地方，以嚴謹的科學方法做了很多的實驗和實證，得出了物種的起源和進化的結論。可惜的是，當時世人根本不瞭解達爾文的理論，而盲目地抨擊他；更可惜的是，有人誤解或刻意曲解他的理論，例如希特拉主張的優生論，說德國人是「最進化」的民族，猶太人是次等的，藉此屠殺了近六百萬猶太人。其實所謂的日爾曼民族，根本是很多小民族的集合體（英國人也屬於廣義的日耳曼人），決不可能是甚麼純正血統。至於優生學，基本上沒有進化論的根據。中文習慣把evolution譯成「進化論」，實在值得商榷，筆者認為譯作「演化論」更佳（嚴復譯之為「天演論」），因為演化是機因的隨機變異，並無進步的意思，我們不能說人類比猿人進化得更多，只是兩者在漫長的演化過程中走了不同的路。

不過，我們決不能把殺戳的罪名加於這兩位偉大的科學家，殺人的不是相對論和演化論，而是戰爭。沒有世界大戰，美國即使發明了核彈，也沒有機會把彈頭投到另一個國家的土地上。沒有一戰和對德國極盡壓迫的凡爾賽和約，就沒有魏瑪共和國，也不會令德國馬克惡性貶值，造就希特拉的崛起。演化論和優生學，到底只是希魔達到他的政治和軍事目的的名目，最多只是催化劑，而不是主因；正如歐美政府面臨大蕭條時，要把一些產業國有化和挽救經濟，也須引用凱因斯的新經濟理論，才能出師有名地改變當時資本主義國家奉若神明的「無形之手」（即自由市場）。

我們可能聽過愛因斯坦和達爾文的事跡，卻未必瞭解他們高深的科學理論，但他們對人類的貢獻之大，連他們自己都沒可能料到。沒有相對論，就沒有量子力學；沒有量子力學，就沒有集成電路，那就不會有微型收音機，不會有微型電腦，更不會有今天的智能手機。而演化論則使人類學、社會學，甚至經濟學等科目得到突破性的發展，現代心理學和醫學更是離不開演化論，現時很多醫治癌症的方法都建基於此，預期未來將有進一步的發展和成果。

在此再次向這兩位偉人致敬。

為甚麼節儉是美德 （二）

在大蕭條發生前，經濟學家相信要發展經濟，只須增加生產，生產越多、消費越多，再多的產品都會被市場吸納。在工業革命之前，這的確是實情，因為沒有工業化的工廠和機器，人類的生產力還很低，很少有供過於求的情況。但隨着生產的技術和系統的進步，生產物品不成問題，有沒有人買才是最大的問題。

因此，在資本主義的社會，節儉是頗為自私的行為，有礙於整體的經濟發展。舉個例子，假設你去電影院看一部戲，票價會分別落到戲院和片商的手，而戲院會支薪給戲院職員，片商會支薪給導演和演員等，接着這些人賺了錢，又會把錢再投入消費市場，如此生生不息，大家都富起來。就是這個道理。

當然，儲蓄的多少和國家的福利制度和保險制度都有關。一個國家不能為有危疾或老弱者提供保障，人民很自然地會貯點錢，以備不時之需。以完善的保險制度，亦可以使有能力負擔保險費的人放心地消費，不必過度儲蓄。有些人可能會說，福利過多會令人民有所依賴，會令有些人乾脆不工作來領取援助，甚至會成為變相的社會主義。其實，如果一個人靠工作掙錢，收入明顯地高於援助金的話，人總是喜歡自食其力的。政府如果能製造出一個環境，令勤奮工作的人收到報酬、可以安居樂業，令決心「脫貧」的人看到出路，人民自會變得積極。

（完）

為甚麼節儉是美德 （一）

“積穀防饑”是中國人的傳統智慧，中國人儲蓄佔扣除生活費後的收入的比率，可能是全世界最高的。如果有能力，我們總是希望有兩個錢防身，以備不時之需。史上有很多賢士，都是以儉樸見稱，節儉隱隱然成了與忠孝仁義等並列的德行。   但為甚麼節儉是美德？道德觀是意識型態，要研究一種意識型態，必須從社會入手。我們可以歸納成三點。首先，試想在古代一個不節儉、不儲蓄的人對社會有甚麼影響？在豐年時影響不大，但在荒年時就大有問題了。 這個人連“穀種”都沒有，他餓起來唯有向身邊的人借，借不到唯有偷、唯有搶，肚子餓甚麼也管不得。所以，不節儉是對社會的潛在威脅，這是第一點。第二點是妒忌心，在豐足的時候我賺多了錢都不敢花，卻看見別人肆無忌憚地大魚大肉，我看不過眼。而第三點其實是第一點的延續，就是儒家思想的定位。漢武帝“罷黜百家，獨尊儒術”其實是一種統治手段。本文只論節儉一項，對國家而言，人民有積蓄，荒年時、天災發生時便無須以國庫的錢賑濟。否則不開國庫是不成的，因為人民沒飯吃會叛亂。而事實上，中國歷朝國庫存金都是冠絕全球的。甚至到鴉片戰爭時，清廷的 國家儲備金都高於英國。那問題出在哪裡？   我們以美國作例子，美國自獨立戰爭以來，一直不斷發國債，向市民借錢，國家從來都有財政赤字，但美國的國民生產總值至目前仍是最高的（第二是日本、第三是中國。）這是藏富於民的政策，民富國窮反而有利於自由市場的經濟發展。這種嶄新的理念，對傳統的中國人來說是不可思議的，中國人有多半個錢都會儲起來，怎可能會借給國家？中國歷代國家經濟一旦衰頹，就只懂得徵稅，而稅重過重，只會使民怨沸騰，最終政權會被推翻，而新政府上場不免輕徭薄賦一 番，直至國勢中衰又是一個循環。   資本主義的精髓，在於資金的流通。人人都很慳儉的話，社會上便很少流動資金，便不能刺激各種商業的發展。二戰前夕的大蕭條，就是因為經濟氣氛逆轉之下，人們一下子出現了恐慌，誰也不願消費，令很多行業倒閉，於是經濟環境更差，人們更不願消費，造成惡性循環所致。