Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow CHAPTER III.: GENERAL VIEW OF THE MISCHIEFS OF THE EXCLUSIONARY SYSTEM. - The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 7 (Rationale of Judicial Evidence Part 2)

Return to Title Page for The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 7 (Rationale of Judicial Evidence Part 2)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Law

CHAPTER III.: GENERAL VIEW OF THE MISCHIEFS OF THE EXCLUSIONARY SYSTEM. - Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 7 (Rationale of Judicial Evidence Part 2) [1843]

Edition used:

The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843). 11 vols. Vol. 7.

Part of: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, 11 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


CHAPTER III.

GENERAL VIEW OF THE MISCHIEFS OF THE EXCLUSIONARY SYSTEM.

Evidence is the basis of justice: to exclude evidence, is to exclude justice.

On the plaintiff’s side, in a suit of a criminal nature,—an excluding rule, as often as it has the effect of shutting the door against an article of true and unfallacious evidence necessary to conviction, operates as a licence for the commission of a crime.

In the exclusionary system may therefore be seen a fund of encouragement constantly applied to the production of all imaginable crimes.

On the plaintiff’s side, in a suit of a non-criminal nature,—an excluding rule, as often as it has the effect of shutting the door against an article of true and unfallacious evidence necessary to the giving effect to a rightful demand, operates as a denial of justice.

In the exclusionary system may thus be seen a fund of encouragement constantly applied to the production of injustice in all its shapes, to the prejudice of the plaintiff’s side: to the destruction of all those private rights which it has been the business of the substantive law to create, and for the efficiency of which it stands pledged.

On the defendant’s side, in a suit of a criminal nature,—an excluding rule, as often as it has the effect of shutting the door against an article of true and unfallacious evidence necessary to acquittal (evidence sufficient for conviction having been delivered on the other side,) operates as a licence for inflicting punishment upon the innocent on a false pretence of criminality.

In the exclusionary system may thus be seen a fund of encouragement constantly applied or applicable to the oppression of the innocent, by the infliction of punishment, in all its shapes, on persons in whose instance it is groundless and undue.

On the defendant’s side, in a suit of a non-penal nature,—an excluding rule, as often as it has the effect of shutting the door against an article of true and unfallacious evidence, necessary to a decision exempting him from the obligation sought by the plaintiff to be imposed upon him (evidence sufficient for a decision imposing that obligation having been delivered on the other side,) operates as a licence for imposing undue obligation in general, a licence to oppression by all imaginable wrongs other than on the score of punishment.

Examples: Exclusion put upon all persons of this or that particular description, includes a licence to commit, in the presence of any number of persons of that description, all imaginable crimes.*

In a law which requires two witnesses for conviction, is included a licence to commit, in the presence of one single person of any description, all crimes and offences whatsoever.

This licence we shall find constantly granted by Roman law, and occasionally by English: in the former by jurisprudence, in the latter by statutes.

Consult your lawyer, or your law books: note the description of witnesses (and a most multifarious and extensive list of them you will find,) by which, were it not for the exclusionary system, you transgression would be capable of being made apparent, but under which, be your transgression what it may, you are safe.

Such is the invitation, such the encouragement, given by the exclusionary principle to dishonest men of all descriptions; and, mutatis mutandis, on either side of the cause.

If either self-conscious injustice, or its chief instruments, mendacity and insincerity, belong to the category of vice,—in the technical system in every country to a certain degree, but in England to a most pre-eminent degree, will be found an ever open school of vice—a source of moral corruption, pouring itself forth in a copious and uninterrupted stream throughout the mass of the people. By example, by reward, by compulsion, by every means possible or imaginable, we shall see (every man does see it that does not shut his eyes against it) this most mischievious of all vices propagated under the shelter of the technical system, propagated by the professed and official guardians of the public morals: and, among the instruments of this disastrous husbandry, are to be found some of the most efficient of the evidence-excluding rules.

From the above description of the nature of the mischief, may be deduced the description of the persons interested in the pushing it up to the highest possible pitch: malâ fide suitors on both sides, including malefactors of all sorts, their accomplices and well-wishers: men of law, as being the natural allies of malefactors and other malâ fide suitors: under the technical system, judges, and other official as well as professional lawyers: professional lawyers under any system.

Exclusion (as will be seen) is one of the grand engines by the help of which corruption has been enabled to gain its ends: and by which arbitrary power, with the jus nocendi it enforces, has been acquired; that faculty, the acquisition of which is so delightful to the human heart, whether, on the particular occasion in question, there be or be not a disposition to employ it.

An engine of power, good, but how of arbitrary power? By means of what has been already described under the name of the double-fountain principle. Exclusion of evidence (barring the few exceptions of which account will be taken) is contrary to reason. But, as often as a judge has recourse to reason, he may be pretty sure of having the opinion of non-lawyers on his side. Establish, then, the irrational excluding rule, you have two fountains, from the one or the other of which you draw, as on each occasion is agreeable to you. Would you serve the plaintiff? draw from the fountain of reason: would you serve the defendant? draw from the fountain of the established rule, store decisis. Secure of eulogium either way, the ground of it is at your choice. Adhere to the rule, you have the praise of steadiness, and superior probity: depart from it, you have the praise of liberality, and superior wisdom. Adhere to it, you have the rigorists for your applauders; depart from it, you have for the same purpose the liberalists.

If it be in the nature of the exclusionary rules to save the judge from deception oftener than it leads him into it, all this mischief may be found to be made amends for, and outweighed. Whether it be in the nature of such an arrangement to be productive of any such advantage, is a question that will be considered in its place.

[* ]Exclusion put, in a case of rape, upon the testimony of quakers, includes a licence to the whole army to storm every quakers’ meeting-house, and violate the persons of all the female part of the congregation, in the presence of fathers, husbands, and brothers.

This licence is among the many of the same kind actually granted (as will be seen) by English lawyers. Defendants, the soldiers, could not be examined against themselves; co-detendants, they could not be examined against one another. Thus the licence is complete. Hire a witness among them, indeed—give him impanity,—your witness is a good witness, the interest ceases, and everything is as it should be: but what happens not unfrequently, none of them will accept your hire; their comrades would cut their throats.—[The defect alluded to with regard to the testimony of quakers in criminal cases, was remedied by 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 49. See Vol. VI. p. 381, Note 6.—Ed.]