PT109.S2.P4.Q24 > Analytics

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

24.

The author's attitude toward eighteenth-century ███████ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ██

Question Type

Author’s attitude

Implied

The author mentions “lawyers” in P3: “Reform was frustrated both by the vested interests of lawyers and by the profession's reverence for tradition and precedent.” We know these are 18th-century lawyers, because these are the lawyers who were frustrating reform of 18th-century evidence law. Since the lawyers stood in the way of reform, the author’s attitude toward the lawyers is negative.

sympathetic

We’re looking for a negative attitude toward the lawyers.

critical

This best captures the author’s attitude. The author is critical of them because they stood in the way of reform.

68%

respectful

We’re looking for a negative attitude toward the lawyers.

scornful

This is too negative — the author isn’t contemptuous or disrespectful toward the lawyers.

ambivalent

We’re looking for a negative attitude toward the lawyers. Ambivalent means having mixed feelings. There’s no evidence the author has mixed feelings toward the lawyers.

12%

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic

More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Full-length diagnostic & practice test All free LSAT resources

PrepTest 109 - Section 2 - Passage 4 - Question 24

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action

PrepTest 109 - Section 2 - Passage 4 - Question 24

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Want to know why the right answer is right?