Expertise Contested: Weimar Debates over Psychological Expertise

Wolffram, Heather

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73594-8_5

Heather Wolffram²

457 Accesses

Abstract

Using the papers given by the jurist Albert Hellwig, the psychiatrist Albert Moll and the psychologist William Stern at the First International Congress for Sexual Research held in Berlin during 1926 as well as materials derived from the Lützow trial, this chapter examines the heated debate over the reliability of children’s testimony in sex crimes trials that occurred between those disciplines competing for the role of psychological expert in Germany’s courtrooms during the Weimar Republic. Looking at the introduction of the juvenile justice system, new rules for the interrogation of juvenile witnesses and changes around the use of forensic specialists (Gerichtsärzte), it considers the reasons why psychiatrists fought hard to exclude psychologists and pedagogues from the courtroom and the ambivalence of jurists about such disputes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 119.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 159.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 159.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
For a brief overview of the facts of the case, see Matthew Conn, “Sexual Science and Sexual Forensics in 1920s Germany: Albert Moll as (S)Expert,” Medical History 56, 2 (2012): 202, 211–215. For an extended study of the trial, its context and ramifications, see Peter Dudek, Liebevolle Züchtigung: ein Mißbrauch der Autorität im Namen der Reformpädagogik (Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt, 2012).
2.
Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz Berlin Dahlem (hereafter GStA PK) I.HA Rep. 84a Justizministerium, Nr. 57939. Robert Störmer acted as a forensic specialist for the district Berlin VII: Charlottenburg, Spandau and Wilmersdorf from April 1921 until December 1930, see Gregor Jeske, “Die gerichtliche und soziale Medizin in Berlin von 1930 bis 1954 unter Müller-Heβ” (Ph.D. diss., Free University Berlin, 2008), 139, 142.
3.
Dudek’s chapter about public commentary on the trial looks at these themes, see Dudek, Liebevolle Züchtigung, 163–175.
4.
Among the expert witnesses were Dr Moll, Dr Störmer, Dr Magnus Hirschfeld, Dr Placzek, Dr Emsmann, Professor Dr Bremer, Dr. Mönkemöller, and Dr. Andreesen , see Dudek, Liebevolle Züchtigung, 97, 123–131.
5.
Placzek’s opinion on Lützow , which he published in advance of the trial, was that he was both homosexual and sadistic. On the first day of the proceedings, the defence applied to have Moll excluded as an expert witness on the grounds of prejudice. Moll had already supplied the prosecution with a report on the defendant that depicted him as having abnormal tendencies. See, Dudek, Liebevolle Züchtigung, 52–53, 99; Conn, “Sexual Science and Sexual Forensics,” 211–212; GStA PK I.HA Rep. 84a Justizministerium, Nr. 57939.
6.
Alfred Andreesen, “Gutachten in der Strafsache gegen von Lützow,” Die Neue Erziehung 8 (1926): 578–600; Otto Mönkemöller, Psychologie und Psychopathologie der Aussage (Heidelberg: Carl Winters, 1930); Dudek, Liebevolle Züchtigung, 129, 131.
7.
Dudek, Liebevolle Züchtigung, 149.
8.
Andreesen, “Gutachten,” 589.
9.
Ibid., 591.
10.
Ibid., 591–593.
11.
Mönkemöller , Psychologie und Psychopathologie der Aussage, vii.
12.
William Stern , Jugendliche Zeugen in Sittlichkeitsprozessen: Ihre Behandlung und psychologische Begutachtung (Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1926).
13.
Andreesen, “Gutachten,” 589.
14.
Dudek notes that the newspaper Berliner Börsen-Courier introduced its readers to Stern’s book in the context of their discussion of children’s reliability as witnesses. Dudek, Liebevolle Züchtigung, 133.
15.
On the reception of Stern’s book and its intervention in the debate around expertise on children’s testimony, see Rebecca Heinemann, Das Kind als Person: William Stern als Wegbereiter der Kinder- und Jugendforschung von 1900 bis 1933 (Kempten: Julius Klinkhardt, 2016), 304–14.
16.
Hildegard Hetzer, “Rezension: William Stern, Jugendliche Zeugen in Sittlichkeitsprozessen, ihre Behandlung und psychologische Begutachtung,” Zentralblatt für die juristische Praxis 44 (1926): 338–340.
17.
Positive reviews of Stern’s book by jurists can be found in, Hertz, “Rezension: Stern , Prof. D. William, Jugendliche Zeugen in Sittlichkeitsprozess. 1926. Quelle & Meyer, Leipzig,” Hanseatische Rechts-Zeitschrift 9 (1926): 720; Albert Hellwig , “Rezension: Max Döring, Richtlininen für den kinderlichenpsychologischen Sachverständigen in Sexualprozessen; William Stern, Jugendliche Zeugen in Sittlichkeitsprozessen,” Juristische Wochenschrift 55, 17/18 (1926): 2155–2157.
18.
Dudek points out that the absence of psychologists as experts was not regarded as a problem during this trial, given the use of pedagogues and psychiatrists. Some of the press observers considered the proceedings to have been too concerned with psychology in any case. Dudek, Liebevolle Züchtigung, 170. That the uncertainty about the use of psychologists as expert witnesses was not isolated to cases involving children’s claims of abuse was apparent from Karl Marbe’s experience in a 1927 Munich trial in which he gave evidence about a rail accident. The defence objected strongly to the use of a psychologist as an expert, arguing that psychological experts should neither be allowed to assess the truthfulness of the witness testimony nor consider the evidentiary material. Karl Marbe, “Psychologie und Irrungen in Fall Aubele,” Der Gerichtssaal 95 (1927): 401–432.
19.
Dudek argues that at least one of Stern’s publications during 1926 was written under the direct influence of the Lützow trial, i.e., William Stern, “Sittlichkeitsvergehen an Kindern und Jugendlichen,” Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie und Jugendkunde 27 (1926): 45–51, 73–80. Similarly it seems apparent that the comments made by Stern in his Congress address were provoked by the exclusion of psychologists from trials including that of Lützow. Dudek, Liebevolle Züchtigung, 14.
20.
This event , Berlin’s first international scientific gathering since the war, featured approximately 120 papers on a wide variety of topics, including sexual pathology and therapy, the ethnographic and religious significance of sexuality as well as the implications of sex research for criminal and civil law, and was attend by prominent sexologists, jurists and policy-makers. See, Otto Kankeleit, “I. Internationaler Kongreβ für Sexualforschung vom 10.–16. Oktober 1926 in Berlin,” Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten 79, 1 (1927): 418–488; Conn, “Sexual Science and Sexual Forensics,” 201.
21.
William Stern, “Psychologische Begutachtung jugendlicher Zeugen in Sexualprozessen,” in Verhandlungen des 1. Internationalen Kongresses für Sexualforschung, Berlin vom 10. Bis 16. Oktober 1926, vol. 5, ed. Max Marcuse (Berlin: A. Marcus & E. Weber, 1928), 154–60. For a contemporary view on this debate, see Paul Plaut, “Forensische Psychologie,” Kriminalistische Monatshefte, 1 (1927): 36.
22.
Plaut , “Forensische Psychologie,” 36.
23.
Plaut , “Forensische Psychologie,” 36; Stern , “Psychologische Begutachtung,” 156; Albert Moll, “Psychologische Begutachtung jugendlicher Zeugen in Sexualprozessen,” in Verhandlungen des 1. Internationalen Kongresses für Sexualforschung, Berlin vom 10. Bis 16. Oktober 1926, vol. 4, ed. Max Marcuse (Berlin & Cologne: A. Marcus & E. Weber, 1928), 141; Albert Hellwig, “Kinderaussagen,” in Verhandlungen des 1. Internationalen Kongresses für Sexualforschung, Berlin vom 10. Bis 16. Oktober 1926, vol. 3, ed. Max Marcuse (Berlin: A. Marcus & E. Weber, 1928), 65.
24.
Brigitte Kerchner, “Unbescholtene Bürger” und “gefährliche Mädchen” um die Jahrhundertwende. Was der Fall Sternberg für die aktuelle Debatte zum sexuellen Mißbrauch an Kindern bedeutet,” Historische Anthropologie: Kultur – Gesellschaft – Alltag 6, 1 (1998): 17.
25.
On the Sternberg trial, see Hugo Friedländer, “Der Prozeβ gegen den Bankier August Sternberg wegen Sittlichkeitsverbrechen,” in Interessante Kriminalprozesse von kulturhistorische Bedeutung, volume II (Berlin: Hermann Barsdorff, 1911), 229–319; On the Andreas Dippold case, see Michael Hagner, Der Hauslehrer: Die Geschichte eines Kriminalfalls (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2010). In regard to psychological and pedagogical research into juvenile witnesses and the discourse of dangerousness that developed as a result, see Dudek, Liebevolle Züchtigung, 133–142; Kerchner, “Unbescholtene Bürger,” 19; Brigitte Kerchner, “Kinderlügen? Zur Kulturgeschicte des sexuellen Miβbrauchs,” in Misshandlung, Vernachlässigung und sexuelle Gewalt in Erziehungsverhältnissen, ed. Urte Finger-Trescher et al. (Giessen: Psychosozial, 2000), 22–23.
26.
Hellwig , “Rezension: Max Döring,” 2155.
27.
Jeske, “Die gerichtliche und soziale Medizin,” 124. Greg Eghigian’s recent study has demonstrated that the scientific and public attitudes towards the testimonial credibility of young girls in sexual trials persisted well into the post-war period. This is evident in a number of cases from the 1950s and 1960s, where clinicians at the Charité were asked to provide reports. See, Greg Eghigian, The Corrigible and the Incorrigible: Science, Medicine, and the Convict in Twentieth-Century Germany (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2015), 114–119.
28.
Kerchner, “Kinderlügen?” 26–27; Siegfried Placzek, “Psychiatrische Gutachten über kriminelle Jugendliche und jugendliche Zeugen,” Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung 39 (1932): 414.
29.
Victor Müller-Heβ, Elisabeth Nau, “Die Bewertung von Aussagen Jugendlicher in Sittlichkeitsprozessen,” Jahreskurse für ärztliche Fortbildung 21, 9 (1930): 71.
30.
Around 1900, a new understanding of children’s sexuality emerged, which regarded behaviours such as masturbation in childhood as a part of normal development rather than a precursor to adult perversion. One of the leading figures in facilitating this paradigm change was Albert Moll. For an in-depth discussion of changing understandings of children’s sexuality at this time and the tensions between the models offered by Moll and Sigmund Freud, see Lutz D. H. Sauerteig, “Loss of Innocence: Albert Moll, Sigmund Freud and the Invention of Childhood Sexuality around 1900,” Medical History 56, 2 (2012): 156–183.
31.
See in particular, Albert Moll, Das Sexualleben des Kindes (Leipzig: F.C.W. Vogel, 1908); Otto Mönkemöller, Geistesstörung und Verbrechen im Kindesalter (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1903); Otto Mönkemöller, Die Psychopathologie der Pubertätszeit (Langensalza: Hermann Beyer & Söhne, 1912); Kerchner, “Kinderlügen?” 27.
32.
While researchers into the problem of children’s testimony were often concerned about false accusations and the damage these might cause to adults, there was also genuine concern on the part of some for the protection of children embroiled in criminal proceedings. Both Moll and Stern pushed for reforms that would protect child victims in court. See, for example, Moll, Das Sexualleben des Kindes, 199–213.
33.
On the development of youth courts prior to the First World War in Germany, see Gabriel N. Finder, “Education not Punishment”: Juvenile Justice in Germany, 1890–1930” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1997). On the push back from jurists, see Gabriel N. Finder, “The Medicalization of Wilhelmine and Weimar Juvenile Justice Reconsidered,” in Crime and Criminal Justice in Modern Germany, ed. Richard F. Wetzell (New York & Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2014), 137–157.
34.
Stern , “Psychologische Begutachtung,” 154.
35.
Ibid.
36.
Ibid.
37.
Ibid., 155.
38.
Ibid., 155–7.
39.
Ibid., 155.
40.
Stern , “Psychologische Begutachtung,” 155; Stern, Jugendliche Zeugen, vii.
41.
Stern , Jugendliche Zeugen, 10.
42.
Otto Lipmann, “Reformvorschläge zur Zeugenvernehmung vom Standpunkte des Psychologen,” Archiv für Kriminal-Anthropologie und Kriminalistik 20 (1905): 68–81.
43.
William Stern, “Zur Reform der Zeugenvernehmung vom Standpunkt der Psychologie,” Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung 7 (1909): 407–410. Stern, in his book Jugendliche Zeugen in Sittlichkeitsprozessen, provided a summary of the suggestions for reform of witness interrogation that were put forward by both psychologists and jurists in the period up until 1913. See Stern, Jugendliche Zeugen, 9–11.
44.
Ibid., 10.
45.
Ibid., 12.
46.
Helmut E. Lück, “Zu Leben und Werk von William Stern,” in Der Briefwechsel zwischen William Stern und Jonas Cohn: Dokumente einer Freundschaft zwischen zwei Wissenschaftlern, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Psychologie, vol. 7, ed. Helmut E. Lück and Dieter-Jürgen Löwisch (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1994), 155.
47.
William Stern, “Psychologisches und Jugendliches vom Ersten internationalen Kongreβ für Sexualwissenschaft,” Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie 28, 2 (1927): 104.
48.
Kerchner, “Kinderlügen?” 22–23; Dudek, Liebevolle Züchtigung, 133–134.
49.
O. H. Michel, Die Zeugnisfähigkeit der Kinder vor Gericht: Ein Beitrag zur Aussagepsychologie (Langensalza: Hermann Beyer & Söhne, 1907), v.
50.
Ibid., 2.
51.
Michel , Die Zeugnisfähigkeit der Kinder, 5–6; G. Herter “Kinderprostitution,” Pädagogische Zeitung: Hauptorgan des Deutschen Lehrervereins 30 (1901): 33–37; B. Dammin, “Über Zeugenaussagen der Schüler,” Pädagogische Warte 19 (1912): 301–309; Charlotte Meyer, “Die Behandlung kindlicher und jugendlicher Zeugen bei Sittlichkeitsprozessen betrachtet vom sozialfürsorgerischen Standpunkt,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafwissenschaft 45 (1925): 126–160; Max Döring, “Zur Vernehmung und Begutachtung Jugendlicher in Sexualprozessen,” Pädagogische Warte 32 (1925): 1028–1037; Kerchner, “Unbescholtene Bürger,” 1–32.
52.
This influence was clear in the foreword to Michel’s book where he stated that “…seldom has a problem found such a lively interest within the pedagogical press as that of the psychology of testimony. The juridical periodicals also participate in a passionate way ‘For’ and ‘Against’ this newest of research areas and ever more ground is won by the conclusions drawn by Stern and his colleagues from their studies, experiments and comparisons …”
Michel , Die Zeugnisfähigkeit der Kinder, v.
53.
Max Döring (ed.), Richtlininen für den kinderlichenpsychologischen Sachverständigen in Sexualprozessen: Pädagogisch-psychologische Arbeiten aus dem Institut des Leipziger Lehrervereins (Leipzig: Verlag der Durrschen Buchhandlung, 1924).
54.
Stern , Jugendliche Zeugen, 12. “Die Rechtsschutzstelle des Deutschen Lehrervereins in Verbindung mit dem Ausschuss für Aussagepsychologie im psychologischen Institut des Leipziger Lehrervereins,” Allgemeine Deutsche Lehrerzeitung 49, 5 (January 1920): 63. Also published in Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 21 (1920): 147.
55.
Stern , Jugendliche Zeugen, 12.
56.
This applied to girls up to the end of their fourteenth year and boys until their fifteenth year. In special cases, it might apply up until the end of a young person’s eighteenth year. Paul Plaut, Der Zeuge und seine Aussage im Strafprozess (Leipzig: Georg Thieme, 1931), 285.
57.
Plaut , Der Zeuge, 285.
58.
Ibid., 289.
59.
Gustav Aschaffenburg, “Der psychologische Sachverständige,” Deutsche Zeitschrift für die gesamte gerichtliche Medizin 10, 1 (1927): 150. William Stern, “Bericht über eine Konferenz forensisch-psychologischer Sachverständiger,” Psychotechnische Umschau 2, 3 (1927): 95.
60.
On Andreesen’s use of Stern’s latest work in the Lützow trial, see Dudek, Liebevolle Züchtigung,128–129; Andreesen, “Gutachten,” 589, where he writes, “Only in recent times has scientific research devoted itself to this area [the psychology of juvenile testimony], I recall the works of Spranger, William Stern among others.”
61.
Döring’s reports can be found in Stern, Jugendliche Zeugen, 139–145.
62.
Stern , Jugendliche Zeugen, 2–3, 139.
63.
Annette Mülberger, “Teaching Psychology to Jurists: Initiatives and Reactions Prior to World War I,” History of Psychology 12, 2 (2009): 81; Plaut , Der Zeuge, 285–300.
64.
The Bavarian regulations were not precise about the ages to which they applied, but those in Thuringia were concerned with boys until the end of their sixteenth year and girls up until their fourteenth year. As in Saxony, an exception was made for children with some form of developmental retardation, who required a psychologically-trained expert until their eighteenth year. Müller-Heβ &Nau , “Die Bewertung von Aussagen,” 51.
65.
Plaut , Der Zeuge, 285–300.
66.
Stern , “Bericht über eine Konferenz,” 95.
67.
Stern , “Bericht über eine Konferenz,” 95–96. “Bericht über eine Konferenz forensisch-psychologischer Sachverständiger,” Deutsche Zeitschrift für die gesamte gerichtliche Medizin 11, 2 (1928): 142.
68.
Plaut , Der Zeuge, 285–300.
69.
The psychiatrists Albert Moll and Otto Mönkemöller both pointed to the difficulty of finding a qualified psychologist to provide reports on children’s credibility outside of the cities. Moll, “Psychologische Begutachtung,” 140; Mönkemöller, Psychologie und Psychopathologie der Aussage, 414.
70.
Stern , “Psychologische Begutachtung,” 155
71.
Aschaffenburg , “Der psychologische Sachverständige,” 151; Plaut , Der Zeuge, 285–300.
72.
While Mönkemöller argued that there was no reason for psychiatrists and psychologists to be pitted against one another and that work could be logically divided between the two disciplines, his emphasis on the prevalence of borderline mental conditions tended to suggest that reliance on psychiatrists as experts was safer than reliance on psychologists. Mönkemöller , Psychologie und Psychopathologie der Aussage, vii, 415.
73.
Stern , “Psychologisches und Jugendliches,” 102.
74.
Moll , “Psychologische Begutachtung,” 141.
75.
Ibid., 141.
76.
Ibid., 140.
77.
Ibid., 142.
78.
Ibid.
79.
Ibid., 142–143.
80.
Willy Vorkastner, “Die psychologischen Beziehungen zwischen Medizin und Recht,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Gerichtliche Medizin 18 (1932): 141–3.
81.
Mönkemöller , Psychologie und Psychopathologie der Aussage, 112.
82.
Ibid., 407.
83.
Richard F. Wetzell, “Psychiatry and Criminal Justice in Modern Germany,” Journal of European Studies 39 (2009): 272–3.
84.
Engstrom, Clinical Psychiatry in Germany, 197–8.
85.
Aschaffenburg , “Der psychologische Sachverständige,” 151–2.
86.
Ibid., 152.
87.
Vorkastner , “Die psychologischen Beziehungen,” 134, 146.
88.
Mönkemöller , Psychologie und Psychopathologie der Aussage, 112–113.
89.
The transition of the psychology of testimony from a theoretical to an applied discipline appears to have been well underway by the inter-war period. Hellwig , for instance, noted that both Döring and Stern had made this crucial step, when he reviewed their books on children’s testimony in sexual trials, Hellwig ,“Rezension: Max Döring,” 2156.
90.
Mönkemöller , Psychologie und Psychopathologie der Aussage, 406.
91.
Albert Moll , “Psychiater und Psychologe als gerichtliche Sachverständige,”Monatsschrift für Psychiatrie und Neurologie 64, 3–4 (1927): 142.
92.
Albert Moll , “Die forensische Bedeutung der modernen Forschungen über die Aussagepsychologie,” Ärztliche Sachverständigen-Zeitung 14, 5 (1908): 87. Moll, “Psychiater und Psychologe,” 144.
93.
Moll , “Psychiater und Psychologe,” 144.
94.
William Stern, “Sittlichkeitsvergehen an Kindern und Jugendlichen,” Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie, experimentelle Pädagogik und jugendliche Forschung 27 (1926): 78; William Stern , “Zwei forensisch-psychologische Gutachten über kindliche Zeugen in Sittlichkeitsprozessen,” Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie 36 (1930): 151–152.
95.
Stern, Jugendliche Zeugen, 70.
96.
Ibid., 76–77.
97.
Stern, “Zwei forensisch-psychologische Gutachten,” 152, 153–161.
98.
Mönkemöller argued that while the pedagogue might grasp the normal psychology of the child in cases of psychopathology, which were frequent around puberty, they were not qualified in make judgements on issues of psychopathology. Mönkemöller , Psychologie und Psychopathologie der Aussage, 114.
99.
Kerchner, “Kinderlügen?” 21–25.
100.
Andreesen, “Gutachten,” 578.
101.
Ibid., 579.
102.
Mönkemöller , Psychologie und Psychopathologie der Aussage, 114–115.
103.
Ibid., 115.
104.
Jeske, “Die gerichtliche und soziale Medizin,” 123–132.
105.
On these issues, see in particular, Christian Müller, Verbrechensbekämpfung im Anstaltsstaat: Psychiatrie, Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform in Deutschland, 1871–1933 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004).
106.
Katherine D. Watson, Forensic Medicine in Western Society: A History (London and New York: Routledge, 2011), 20–22.
107.
Morris Ploscowe, “The Expert Witness in Criminal Cases in France, Germany, and Italy,” Law and Contemporary Problems 504 (1935): 505.
108.
Ploscowe, “The Expert Witness,” 504–5.
109.
Wetzell, “Psychiatry and Criminal Justice,” 271. Benjamin Carter Hett, Death in the Tiergarten: Murder and Criminal Justice in the Kaiser’s Berlin (Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard University Press, 2004.)
110.
Müller , Verbrechensbekämpfung, 25–6.
111.
Ibid., 28.
112.
Eric J. Engstrom, Clinical Psychiatry in Germany: A History of Psychiatric Practice, (Ithica & London: Cornell University Press, 2003): 197; Müller, Verbrechensbekämpfung, 28.
113.
Wetzell, “Psychiatry and Criminal Justice,” 277.
114.
Müller , Verbrechensbekämpfung, 28–9.
115.
Ibid., 29.
116.
Ibid., 29–31.
117.
Ibid., 30–1.
118.
Müller , Verbrechensbekämpfung, 29; E. Lignitz, “The History of Forensic Medicine in Times of the Weimar Republic and National Socialism – An Approach,” Forensic Science International 144 (2004): 115.
119.
Lignitz, “The History of Forensic Medicine,” 115; W. Krauland, “The History of the German Society of Forensic Medicine,” Forensic Science International 144 (2004): 100.
120.
Lorenz Franck, Juristen und Sachverständige: Der Diskurs um die rechtliche Ausgestaltung des Verfahrens (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2013), 175; Bonhoeffer, “Bemerkungen zu Schorns Aufsatz,” Monatsschrift für Kriminalpsychologie und Strafrechtreform 19 (1928): 433–4.
121.
Bonhoeffer, “Bemerkungen zu Schorns Aufsatz,” 433–4.
122.
Albert Moll , Ein Leben als Arzt der Seele: Erinnerungen (Dresden: Carl Reissner, 1936), 167–70.
123.
Moll , Ein Leben, 170.
124.
Moll made this apparent in his autobiography by following his attack on Gerichtsärzte with a critique of the use of psychologists as forensic experts and a diatribe against William Stern . Moll, Ein Leben, 177–9.
125.
Müller-Heβ &Nau , “Die Bewertung von Aussagen,” 48–51.
126.
Ibid., 56.
127.
Ibid., 58.
128.
Jeske, “Die gerichtliche und soziale Medizin,” 125.
129.
Müller -Heβ &Nau , “Die Bewertung von Aussagen,” 50.
130.
Müller-Heβ & Nau, “Die Bewertung von Aussagen,” 48–51; Jeske, “Die gerichtliche und soziale Medizin,” 126–129.
131.
Müller-Heβ &Nau , “Die Bewertung von Aussagen,” 72.
132.
Ibid., 57–58.
133.
Ibid., 58.
134.
Ibid., 58.
135.
Albert Hellwig, Psychologie und Vernehmungstechnik bei Tatbestandermittlungen: Eine Einführung in die forensische psychologie für Polizeibeamte, Richter, Staatsanwälte, Sachverständige und Laienrichter (Berlin: Langenscheidt, 1927).
136.
Letter from Albert Hellwig to Paul Plaut, 11/12/1927, Paul Plaut Correspondence, 1897–1932, Document Collection 647, Wiener Library, London.
137.
Albert Hellwig, “Psychologen und Psychiater als psychologische Sachverständige,” Die medizinische Welt 42 (1930): 1518–9.
138.
Finder, “Education not Punishment,” 61; Hellwig, “Kinderaussagen,” 64; Albert Hellwig, Jugendgerichtsgesetz 1923 (Berlin, 1923).
139.
Hellwig , “Kinderaussagen,” 64.
140.
Ibid., 65.
141.
On the psychological training undertaken by juvenile court judges in the second half of the 1920s, see Finder, “The Medicalization of Wilhelmine and Weimar Juvenile Justice,” 148–149.
142.
Hellwig , “Kinderaussagen,” 65.
143.
Mülberger, “Teaching Psychology to Jurists.”
144.
On the emergence of a juvenile justice system in the period before the First World War, see Andreas Roth, “Die Entstehung eines Jugendstrafrechts. Das Problem der strafrechtlichen Behandlungen von Jugendlichen in der Zeit vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg,” Zeitschrift für Neuere Rechtsgeschichte 13 (1991): 17–39.
145.
Finder, “The Medicalization of Wilhelmine and Weimar Juvenile Justice,” 144.
146.
This petition, as Gabriel N. Finder notes, was not successful. See, Finder, “The Medicalization of Wilhelmine and Weimar Juvenile Justice,” 144.
147.
Finder, “The Medicalization of Wilhelmine and Weimar Juvenile Justice,” 148; Finder, “Education not Punishment,” 101–106.
148.
Finder, “Education not Punishment,” 101–124.
149.
Stern , “Jugendliche Zeugen in Sittlichkeitsprozessen,” 15. “Zeugenaussagen von Kindern und Jugendlichen. Verhandlungen des 6. Jugendgerichtstages, Heidelberg, 17–19 Sept., 1924” in Vereinigung für Jugendgerichte und Jugendgerichtshilfen, 5 (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1925), 58–100.
150.
An example that clearly illustrates this is Hans Reichel’s 1910 book on forensic psychology, in which he stresses than even if the judge makes use of a psychiatric expert, the decision as to whether a witness is credible ultimately lies with him, Hans Reichel, Über Forensische Psychologie, (Munich: Oskar Beck, 1910), 33–34.
151.
On judicial error, see, for example, Erich Sello, Die Hau Prozesse und ihre Lehren. Auch ein Beitrag zur Strafprozessreform (Berlin, Marquardt & Co., 1908). Moll wrote on Sello’s book and the importance of judicial errors for the forensic doctor in, Albert Moll “Irrtuemer der Strafjustiz und aerztliche Sachverständige,” Aerztliche Sachverstaendigen-Zeitung 17, 1 (1912): 12–14.
152.
Reichel , Über Forensische Psychologie, 17; Franz von Liszt, “Strafrecht und Psychologie,” Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung 7 (1902): 16–17. Liszt had developed these experiments in conjunction with William Stern.
153.
Reichel , Über Forensische Psychologie, 38–42.
154.
Ibid., 40–41.
155.
Ibid., 33–4.
156.
Hellwig , “Psychologen und Psychiater,” 1518.
157.
Ibid., 1518.
158.
Ibid.
159.
Ibid., 1519.
160.
Ibid.
161.
Ibid.
162.
Paul Plaut, Psychologische Gutachten in Strafprozessen (Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius, 1932), 1.
163.
“Psychiatrische Gutachten über kriminelle Jugendliche [Minderjährige] und jugendliche Zeugen,” Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung 38 (1931): 367.
164.
Ibid.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

History, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand
Heather Wolffram

Authors

Heather Wolffram
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wolffram, H. (2018). Expertise Contested: Weimar Debates over Psychological Expertise. In: Forensic Psychology in Germany. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73594-8_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73594-8_5
Published: 08 March 2018
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73593-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73594-8
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics