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

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Bentham, Jeremy(the statement discusses his ideas about how laws should be organized): An 18th-century British philosopher who argued that the best laws and actions are those that produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
Categorical exclusionary rules(as the legal practice being critiqued): Hard-and-fast rules that say certain types of evidence can never be used in court, no matter the circumstances—like blanket bans rather than case-by-case decisions.
Epistemic accuracy(as the goal that Bentham says the rules don't serve): How close you get to the actual truth—basically, whether you're finding out what really happened rather than making mistakes.
Institutional interests(as the hidden motivation Bentham is pointing out): The goals and advantages of large organizations (like courts or the legal profession) that benefit the people running them, even if they don't help regular people.

Based on where you are in your exploration