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.
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.
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 ██████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ████████
Question Type
Implied
We can’t anticipate the answer to this question, so let’s rely on process of elimination.
a
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.
b
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.
c
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.
d
The late eighteenth ███████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ████
We don’t know what marked the “beginning” of evidence law. Maybe it began in the 17th century.
e
Prior to the ██████████ ████████ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ██████ ████
Not supported, because we don’t know what evidence rules were based on before the 18th century.
Difficulty
46% of people who answer get this correct
This is a very difficult question.
It is similar in difficulty to other questions in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%147
172
75%180
Analysis
Implied
Critique or debate
Law
Problem-analysis
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
14%
165
b
46%
168
c
32%
168
d
7%
159
e
2%
159
Question history
You don't have any history with this question.. yet!
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.