PrepTest 109 - Section 2 - Passage 4 - Question 26

Hide analysis

By the time Bentham turned his interest to the subject, late in the eighteenth century, most components of modern evidence law had been assembled. ███

Intro to Topic · Modern evidence law

Historical Example · Parties to a case cannot testify

E.g., a defendant in a criminal case had no right to testify. This rule has been abandoned.

████████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ████ ████████████ ███ ██ █████ ████████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ███ █████████ ██ █████ █████████ ████████ █████████ ███████ ██ ████ ████████ ████████ ███████ ████████ ███ █████████ ████████ ███████ ██████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███████████████ ███ ████ ████████ ███ ████████████ ████████ ████ █████ ████████████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████████ ███ █████████ ███ ███ ██████ ███████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ████████ ███████ ████ ████ ██████

Historical Context · Exclusionary rules were typical and over-applied

Usually based on rational grounds. But mechanically and hence over-applied.

Consequence / Problem · Obscured truth

As a consequence of exclusionary rules, truth would not emerge from trials.

Bentham's Solution · Inclusion is the rule, exclusion is the exception

If relevant, then include. Narrow exceptions made for exclusion. Flips the status quo of evidence law (exclusion rule, inclusion exception) on its head.

Problem / Critique · Some types of evidence are inherently unreliable

For example, interested-party testimony and hearsay evidence.

███████ ██████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ███████████ ███ ██ ██████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ███

Solution / Rebuttal · Let the jury decide

███ ████ █████████ ████████ █████████ ██ ████████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ █ █████ ████ ███████ ████ █ ████ ████ ███

Problem / Critique · Some relevant evidence is more likely to produce false verdict

Example · Evidence of defendant's past bank robberies

Sure, it's relevant. But it also prejudices the jury (meaning it makes jury think that being a bank-robber is in his character) and so hurts the jury's ability to decide correctly in this case.

Problem / Critique · Bentham's exceptions are inconsistently applied

Bentham concedes that there can be other values more important than admitting relevant evidence. That's why he excludes sacramental confessions. Okay, but that same reason should also apply to exclude other privileged communications.

███████ ████████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██████ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ████ █████ █████████ ██████ ████████ ████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████ █████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ███ ████ █████████████ ███████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███ ████████████ ██████████ ███████ ████ █ ████ ██ █ ████████████

Consequence · Bentham's principle prevails

Despite the concerns raise, Bentham's idea of admitting evidence by default and excluding evidence only when there are clear reasons for doing so is now the standard.

Passage Style

Critique or debate

Problem-analysis

26.

Which one of the following ██████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ████████

Common-law rules of ████████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████████

Not supported, because there can still be some common-law doctrines that exist under modern evidence law. Although we know that there are some common-law doctrines that used “bizarre” principles that are abandoned, this doesn’t imply that all common-law rules have been abandoned or replaced.

14%

Modern evidence law ██ ████ █████ ████ ███ ██████████████████ ████████ ████

Supported, because modern evidence law now makes relevant evidence admissible unless there are clear policy grounds for excluding it. This is less rigid than 18th-century evidence law, which had a “morass of evidentiary technicalities” that made many types of relevant evidence inadmissible.

46%

Some current laws █████████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██████████ ██████████

Not supported, because we don’t know whether there are laws that don’t derive from common-law doctrines. It’s possible all current laws regarding evidence come from common-law doctrines.

32%

The late eighteenth ███████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ████

We don’t know what marked the “beginning” of evidence law. Maybe it began in the 17th century.

Prior to the ██████████ ████████ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ██████ ████

Not supported, because we don’t know what evidence rules were based on before the 18th century.

PrepTest 109 - Section 2 - Passage 4 - Question 26

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Confirm action