Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A rule-based approach to admissibility of evidence will n... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A rule-based approach to admissibility of evidence will not undermine the aim of rectitude of decision in the long run

    ConsequentialismJustice & Punishment
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Having triers of fact follow rules on certain matters instead of exercising case-by-case judgment may produce the greatest number of favorable outcomes in the aggregate
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Formal rules must be followed even when doing so might not serve the background reason for the rule in a particular case
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If hearsay evidence is generally unreliable, excluding it without regard to reliability in individual cases may better serve the interest of accuracy overall
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Uniform exclusionary rules systematically sacrifice accuracy in individual cases where excluded evidence is demonstrably reliable, producing identifiable injustices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rawls's difference principle demands that institutional rules be justified to the worst-off individuals, not merely optimized in aggregate—wrongful convictions cannot be offset by statistical gains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A rule that generates knowable false outcomes in specifiable case-types fails rectitude not merely incidentally but structurally, undermining the very aim it claims to serve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bentham's critique in 'Rationale of Judicial Evidence' demonstrated that categorical exclusionary rules were designed to serve professional and institutional interests, not epistemic accuracy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the historical origin of hearsay and similar rules reflects adversarial procedural interests rather than reliability concerns, their aggregate epistemic benefits cannot be assumed without independent empirical verification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Absent that verification, the consequentialist defense of rule-based admissibility rests on an empirical premise—that rules outperform case-by-case judgment over time—that has not been established.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Justice & PunishmentConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    A rule that generates knowable false outcomes in specifiable case-types fails re...Absent that verification, the consequentialist defense of rule-based admissibili...Bentham's critique in 'Rationale of Judicial Evidence' demonstrated that categor...Formal rules must be followed even when doing so might not serve the background ...
    +6 moreShow less
    Given the imperfection of human reason and suspicion about fact-finder reasoning...Having triers of fact follow rules on certain matters instead of exercising case...If hearsay evidence is generally unreliable, excluding it without regard to reli...If the historical origin of hearsay and similar rules reflects adversarial proce...Rawls's difference principle demands that institutional rules be justified to th...Uniform exclusionary rules systematically sacrifice accuracy in individual cases...

    Similar

    The rule-consequentialist argument for exclusionary rules of evidence ...75%V-admissibility requires that a rationally eligible alternative be opt...73%Probability-based decision thresholds can accommodate the requirement ...72%Natural law theories hold that sound adjudication gives priority to so...72%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: evidence-legal
    View source passageHide passage
    Even if we agree with Bentham that rectitude of decision is the aim of legal procedure and that achieving accuracy in fact-finding is necessary to attain this aim, it is not obvious that a rule-based approach to admissibility will undermine this aim in the long run. Schauer has defended exclusionary rules of evidence along a rule-consequentialist line. Having the triers of fact follow rules on certain matters instead of allowing them the discretion to exercise judgment on a case-by-case basis ma
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit