Hear Everything, Weigh Everything
No relevant evidence should ever be shut out. Every rule that bars a whole class of testimony in advance throws away information a truth-seeker would want, and courts had built such rules by the dozen.
The central claim runs against the whole grain of English law. Where the courts had erected elaborate rules barring entire classes of testimony, interested parties, spouses, the irreligious, confidential communications, Bentham holds that every such exclusion discards information a person seeking the truth would want. A court that refuses to hear is a court that has decided, before the fact, to know less. The principle is the free admission of proof: relevance, not a standing rule, decides what reaches the tribunal. It is Bentham's own compressed statement of an argument the young J.S. Mill drew from his manuscripts into the five-volume Rationale of Judicial Evidence of 1827.
- evidence
- legal theory
- epistemology
- utility
- justice
Enter a dialogue
- A husband lies bed-ridden in Scotland, his wife in Cornwall. Why did you mock the law that still named him the child's father and barred any proof otherwise?
- You would shut out no relevant testimony, yet say a priest must never be made to reveal what was told in confession. Why is that exclusion different?
- A witness is barred as an unbeliever, yet unbelief can be proved only through the witness's own truthfulness. What does that show about the rule?
- A person with a just claim never sues, knowing the court would refuse their only proof. Why do you count that as injustice the rule itself causes?
- The law bars a witness who stands to gain money, yet not one driven by hatred, love or ambition. Why is money the only motive it fears?