LSAT 109, Section 2, RC Passage 4, Bentham

RC Passage 4 Explanation

This is an explanation for passage 4 of LSAT preptest 33, the December 2000 LSAT. This passage is a summary of Bentham’s reforms to evidence law.

This section has paragraph summaries and an analysis of the passage, links to the explanations for the questions are below.

Paragraph Summaries

1. Evidence law in Bentham’s time was similar to ours, but also strange. For example, you couldn’t testify in your own case.
2. There was a reason for most rules (e.g. Hearsay: banned because you couldn’t cross examine someone not present). But such reasons often led to irrationality (relevant and reliable evidence was often excluded).
3. Tradition and vested interests prevented reform. Bentham swept the old rules aside, and declared almost everything admissible apart from a few exceptions.
4. Problem: some evidence is too misleading to admit. Another problem: if some evidence (confessions to priests) shouldn’t be admitted, then why not prevent the admission of other privileged evidence?
5. Bentham’s non-exclusion principle is the basis of modern evidence law, even if we make more exceptions than he did.

Analysis

This passage gives a brief summary of Bentham’s reforms to evidence law. The state of the law before Bentham is described, Bentham’s reforms and principles are given, and the result is announced: Bentham’s principle underlies modern evidence law.