Introduction
The question of guilt dates back to, and is inextricably bound up with, the very beginning of humanity's history. Was Eve guilty for taking the first bite of the apple--or for tempting Adam to take his first bite? Was the serpent who tempted Eve in the first place the original guilty party? A few years later, did Cain become the first actual criminal when he killed his brother Abel?
In modern psychiatric terms, do any of these questions have any real meaning?
In the thinking of at least one contemporary authority, these questions call for a good deal of re-examination. Nicholas N. Kittrie, S.J.D., Director of the Institute for Studies in Justice and Social Behavior of The American University Law School, in an article published in Federal Probation magazine, had these pertinent comments to make:
"Guilt is a legal concept, not a scientific fact. In modern society it is the function of courts of law, rather than witch doctors, legislatures, or bureaucrats to decree guilt and innocence and to assess punishment upon those found guilty. Today's method for finding guilt consists of an elaborate legal ritual, called trial, where witnesses come forward like actors in a play to give evidence. It is from this evidence that guilt of innocence is distilled. While the measure of punishment is typically left to the discretion of judges, the determination of guilt has been delegated to juries both by early English legislation and the American Constitution. It is thus one's own peers who must weigh the evidence and decide the probability of guilt--whether it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Evidence is whatever courts consider proper and relevant for the weighing and determination of criminal guilt. Trial by fire--where guilt was proved by the accused's inability to put out the flames set by him, or by bitter waters, where the wife's infidelity was established by the swelling of her belly after drinking the testing concoction--were not uncommon until the Middle Ages. Trial by combat was another popular means for weighing evidence and determining guilt. Those not guilty were expected to prove their innocence through an armed victory over their accusers.
"Trials through witnesses go back to Biblical times. Yet one might assert that it was Europe's Age of Reason, with its emphasis upon communications and the rationality of man, which accounts for the emergence of the modern trial--where words rather than acts of faith take preeminence. In the courts of America proof is usually made today through either verbal testimony or demonstrative evidence. Most frequently, an eye witness will describe what he saw or heard. Occasionally, the murder weapon, including fingerprints, the forged paper, or the clothing of the suspect, may be introduced at the trial as demonstrative proof. Any one of these types of evidence may also be classified as either direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence means that the witness in fact saw the very fact he describes; circumstantial evidence relates only indirectly to the facts that need be proved. A witness who did not observe a burglary, yet who testifies to the accused's spending an unusual amount of money shortly thereafter, is offering circumstantial evidence."
We could quote further, but we think this is sufficient to establish the confused nature of the situation. Innocence or guilt is, obviously, not always a clear-cut and obviously defined decision. And the novel you are about to read, Diane's Lessons in Bondage by Warren Bisig, while highly successful on its own terms as an entertaining story, is an excellent illustration of this important point.
Diane, the novel's heroine, is obviously an innocent young girl. As the story opens, she finds herself face to face with a gang of armed thugs, who deliberately rob her uncle's jewelry store. To compound their guilt, they beat the uncle into insensibility, kidnap Diane, and immediately assault, rape, and torture her.
It seems perfectly obvious that they are guilty--and she is innocent. Yet is this completely true?
It would be a mistake for anyone to try to answer this crucial question before reading the entire story, weighing all the facts, and thinking seriously about his conclusions. The reader, while enjoying the book, should consider himself a member of a jury. There is a distinct possibility that Diane has deliberately provoked the situation in which she finds herself... or, at best, that she leads the hoodlums on into acts they would not have done otherwise. In the final analysis, how much of the guilt does she have to share?
It is up to you, the reader, to decide for yourself. And whatever your conclusions, we are sure you are in for a stimulating, thought-provoking experience.
The Publishers