DISCUSSION: Bentham discusses this in lines 36-39. We should let the jury decide if information is useful. Otherwise we’d prefer not knowing about the evidence (ignorance).
He was responding to the argument that hearsay and interested party testimony should be excluded.
- Bentham is talking about a specific case of admissibility, not legal convention in general.
- Again, Bentham is just talking about a couple of specific cases of admissibility. He’s not discussing legal reform in general.
- Confessions come later, in lines 45-48.
- CORRECT. This is stated directly in lines 36-37. The question was testing whether you could find the line and understand what it referred to.
- In lines 36-39, Bentham is arguing that we should include evidence. The exceptions come later.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions