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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

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

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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