A Procedure Aimed at Truth
The point of a trial is to find out what happened, and every rule of the courtroom is answerable to that; where procedure serves the profession instead of the truth, it has forgotten what it is for.
Bentham's rival design turns on a single question: does this arrangement of judges, courts and trials help a nation reach the truth, or does it help the lawyers? His plan carries the reforms he pressed all his life, above all proceedings thrown open to the public, so that what is done in a court can be seen and judged. The machinery of English justice, he charged, had grown to feed those who worked it, multiplying delay and mystery. Against it he sets a procedure built from scratch and aimed at one end: the facts, reached cheaply and in the open.
- legal procedure
- evidence
- justice
- truth
- procedural law
- judicial discretion
Enter a dialogue
- You argue that a small money dispute is more likely a poor person's than a large one. Why should the smallest sums count among a court's weightiest cases?
- Courts grant every defendant the same fixed delay because a few may need it. Why should delay be granted only where a case shows the need?
- Isn't an open, public hearing just as easily a spectacle as a safeguard, exposing a witness rather than protecting the truth?
- How would you tell a procedural rule that guards the truth from one that merely guards the lawyers who administer it?
- The French Assembly's plan added separate 'reconciliation offices' to keep people out of court. Why did you say an ordinary judge could recommend a compromise himself?