Why do we need motives?
In criminal law, a "crime" is defined as "an unlawful and culpable act that meets the constituent requirements."
``Constituent requirements'' are acts stipulated in the Penal Code. Murder corresponds to ``killing a person'', and robbery corresponds to ``taking someone else's property using violence or intimidation''. To do.
"Illegal" means against the law, and when a police officer shoots and kills a criminal in the course of his duty, it is a legitimate act and not illegal.
"Responsible" means a crime committed by a person who has the ability to take responsibility.
Each of the elements described here are in place to make a person guilty.
And the Criminal Code states that "acts that do not intend to commit a crime shall not be punished."This is what is called "intentional".
It is something that is said in the TV detective story with the line "Do you have criminal intentions?"
In other words, it is necessary to have the feeling of wanting to kill someone, the feeling of punching, kicking, or verbally intimidating someone to take away someone else's property.
Unlike other mammals, humans do not kill humans for the sake of eating them.It is impossible to kill a person without thinking at all.
There is a feeling of animosity toward some other person.Critics say that this feeling is the "motive" and that by clarifying the motive, the full picture of the crime will be revealed.
Taking murder as an example, judicial precedents say that if a person understands the fact that "a person will die" by his/her own act and thinks that "a person's death is unavoidable," then the crime of murder is established.
In other words, looking at the fact that the death sentence was finalized by the Supreme Court while the motive for the Wakayama poisoned curry incident was ``unexplained'', a ``motive'' is not necessarily necessary.
Then, why is it said so loudly in the mass media, etc., that the motives are clarified?
In my personal opinion, I think this is because when the "motive" becomes clear, the storyline that the mass media emphasizes is highlighted.
Isn't it because the so-called "story" is born there and you can tell the incident as if you were watching a drama?
However, it is not so easy to ``motivate'' and ``to clarify the whole incident'' to the extent that it is said that ``truth is stranger than fiction.''
Investigators go to great lengths to obtain objectively consistent statements from suspects based on piece by piece of evidence.
Of course, it is impossible to make a suspect confess while yelling at the desk, or to eat katsudon in the interrogation room.
Depending on the crime, all interrogations are recorded and treated as evidence in court.
The interrogation is a battle of wits, and how to extract statements from the suspect is a psychological battle.
Some scholars have said that interrogation is like counseling.Isn't it just that the interrogation is being conducted by making full use of psychological elements?
We hope that students who aim to become police officers will learn practical criminal psychology at our university and make their dreams come true.
