JB/047/049/001

Click Here To Edit

28 Feb. 1803
Evidence

To justify the establishment of the rule, in the character
of an efficient cause of truth – to justify the regarding
it as an institution the effect of which will be subservient
productive of the effect result aimed at by the system of procedure
oftener than it of the contrary result – observe the supposition
that must be made. In the first place it

It must be supposed in the first place that, in the
aggregate of the cases to which the rule of exclusion applies,
perjury will be more frequent than veracity:⊞ ⊞ and this in respect to each proposition – distinguishable with fact & circumstances deposed to. – and this
in spite of the tutelary notwithstanding the influence of the doctrinastic process.

Nor yet is this all: for a further supposition that
must be added, is – that the cases in which perjury
is thus successful is not only committed, but committed with success will be more numerous than the cases
in which the testimony thus admitted is true, and obtains
the credit which by the supposition is its due due to it
after the deduction of deducting those in which it fails of obtaining the credit
which by the supposition is due to it.

The improbability of this ballance of success on the side
of successful perjury with I trust I am inclined to think, appear
as in stronger and stronger colours, as the enquiry advances.

Suppose the intention to committ perjury to be in those cases as common
as but not more common than veracity the intention to
adhere to truth – on this supposition there was the utility
the mischievousness of these rules must be admitted beyond
a doubt. for in this case, can it be supposed that
the influence of the docrinastic process in the testimony
added to that of he sagacity of displayed by the judge in weighing
it will not be sufficient to turn the scale? To suppose
this we must suppose two things – 1. that the cross-examination
and the other operations in the docrinastic process operate
not in any degree as a check to false testimony – 2. that truth stands
no better chance for being
believed than falshood,
and that no attempt at imposition in this way
is ever detected by the
Judge. But this supposition
is in direct contradiction
to continual experience.

Identifier: | JB/047/049/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 47.
Date_1	1803-02-28	Marginal Summary Numbering	39-40
Box	047	Main Headings	evidence
Folio number	049	Info in main headings field	evidence
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	d14
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	1800
Marginals	john herbert koe	Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1800
Notes public		ID Number	14917
Box Contents