The Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) excludes too much evidence on the hindquarters of rationales that are unclear or cheating(prenominal)ifiable. As a result, the virtue is often too readily compromised in court and, hence, un ripe let outcomes can occur.
What does the evidence act do to exclude evience? If anything it broadens makes more(prenominal) available evidence that in the past wasnt available.
relevancy is the cornerstone of admissibility. Cf with another system where everything is seen as relevant. roughly things need to be excluded is inevitable. Impractical, too costly, doesnt lead to true statement if everything is included. Thus the search must be narrowed. Chapter 3 sets out the elisions. What do I think about these exclusions for which the basis of which the rationales to these exclusion may be unclear.
Exclusions: Hearsay, tendancy, opinion. The reasonsings for these exclusions might be unclear. The nature of the exclusionary rules? What they care in common is xxx, it is inevitable that we look to exlusions, they can never be entirely appropriate and consequently exceptions to exclusions may go away them back in. Is this criticism too harsh?
Part 2- contemplate rightfulness. Truth is the creation of a persons observations fatiguet say this. The idea of truth is a still concept. The truth is ultimately what the judge determines. The court is an arena for prosecute truth. Unjust outcomes can occur. We must bear in oral sex that there is no absolutes to which we can compare the result of the truth and make a judgement on if it is a just outcome. Everything in life is a hypothesis. All we can do is make genuine the process is fair to make sure it is as just as possible.
Is this comment accurate?
conjure: first 10 min or so in the lecture the 25/7
u are not expect to have an in depth discussion of all the exclusionary rules, or...If you need to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment