EVIDENCE

JOHN JACKSON AND SEAN DORAN

The article is about how the truth is achieved, do we have to follow
the legal procedures or disregard it as long as the truth is achieved.
The theory of evidence and legal proof of Jeremy Bentham is the most
developed in the history of legal thought. Benthams views are
controversial and not universally accepted, but despite that, his work
influenced the thought about evidence in the legal process in three
significant ways: first, Bentham articulated a cognitivist, empirical
epistemology that laid foundation for many of the epistemological and
logical assumptions of standard evidence discourse in the Anglo
American world; second, to commit adjudication to truth finding;
third, his approach towards the law of evidence. Benthams antinomian thesis lays down the gauntlet to the law of evidence,
challenging it to justify its continuing existence.
Bentham believes that in finding the truth, observing legal procedure
is not essential as long as the truth is achieved, and individuals can
reason for themselves without relying on the rules set by the
authority. However, Thayer opposed the beliefs of Bentham. He did
not favour Benthams complete absence of rules in the rationalization
of the rules of evidence. No matter how highly a system of proof
values rectitude in decision making, it is impossible to have a system
of adjudication without some rules regulating proof. A decision must
be reached on the issues in dispute.
Questions of fact are matters of common sense to be distinguished
from rules of evidence, which are treated as exceptional and artificial
constraints on free inquiry. It would seem that we need to open up the
process of discovery of evidence to as much scrutiny as the process of
justification, which means that we need to focus as much on the
process of proof before trial as on the process of proof at trial. The
existing procedures for evaluating evidence need to be fundamentally
reviewed. There is a need to reconsider the role of the parties and
adjudicators at trial.
The law of evidence has a vital role to play in the preparation,
presentation and evaluation of evidence. Litigants are turning away
towards alternative procedures and conventional legal procedures are
slowly being displaced by alternative forms of dispute resolution such
as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration, which do not count truth
finding amongst their primary goals. It is vital that there is access to
justice, but that an outcome is reached that is as fair and accurate as
it can be within the constraints of litigation.
As our conclusion, we agree with Thayers contention that rules
should be followed in reaching the truth because this will prevent
bias. In a controversy, if we follow rules in presenting the evidence

then both parties will follow it, then one party cannot say that theres
bias because both of them are given equal treatment. They are given
the same legal procedure and the chance to present their evidence.
We could not always rely on our common sense because humans as we
are, we do get confused and in the end we find ourselves referring to
the standard rules or the law of the land.