True enough. But once upon a time, this *did* make perfect sense. When everyone believed in God and an afterlife and the utter reality of an eternity in Heaven and Hell...well, would *you* lie when you were about to meet the Maker who could toss you into the torment of flames everlasting?
Among the things we have lost with "the world we have lost:" the power of a gripping narrative of deathbed conversion.
None of the above is to suggest that this legal principle shouldn't be revisited and perhaps revised. And yes, I am a history geek.
You're an expert IA, which is different from a geek, and you make a very good point about belief (though perhaps our ancestors comforted themselves by attributing recall bias even to God).
I'm not so sure about the loss of the possibility of deathbed conversions: now, we can wish that we had done--not better--but more. Conversion, but no chance of redemption.
Well, there's not too much to say about the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule. The basic hearsay rule is that any statement not made by a witness while testifying that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is not admissible evidence. Dying declarations (which have to be about the immediate cause of the declarant's death and not just any old thing) - which are out of court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (i.e., cause of death) - are admissible even though they are hearsay. One of the great joys of studying for the bar is learning the 408 other exceptions to the hearsay rule. As the article and IA point out, there are reasons to doubt the wisdom of this rule. What else do you want to know?
It's interesting that the justification rests on the veracity of the dying, not on the fact that dead people can't testify. (In some other cases of hearsay, we could just get testimony from the source, but here, of course, the relevant party is dead, so that might ground an exception.)
oh, did you know that I can't see who wrote what post? Is that intentional?
True enough. But once upon a time, this *did* make perfect sense. When everyone believed in God and an afterlife and the utter reality of an eternity in Heaven and Hell...well, would *you* lie when you were about to meet the Maker who could toss you into the torment of flames everlasting?
Among the things we have lost with "the world we have lost:" the power of a gripping narrative of deathbed conversion.
None of the above is to suggest that this legal principle shouldn't be revisited and perhaps revised. And yes, I am a history geek.
Posted by Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 11- 4-03 7:40 PM
You're an expert IA, which is different from a geek, and you make a very good point about belief (though perhaps our ancestors comforted themselves by attributing recall bias even to God).
I'm not so sure about the loss of the possibility of deathbed conversions: now, we can wish that we had done--not better--but more. Conversion, but no chance of redemption.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 4-03 7:51 PM
Well, there's not too much to say about the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule. The basic hearsay rule is that any statement not made by a witness while testifying that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is not admissible evidence. Dying declarations (which have to be about the immediate cause of the declarant's death and not just any old thing) - which are out of court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (i.e., cause of death) - are admissible even though they are hearsay. One of the great joys of studying for the bar is learning the 408 other exceptions to the hearsay rule. As the article and IA point out, there are reasons to doubt the wisdom of this rule. What else do you want to know?
Posted by unf | Link to this comment | 11- 4-03 9:40 PM
Since you ask, I have been wondering, do you realize you have author privileges on this blog?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 4-03 9:42 PM
It's interesting that the justification rests on the veracity of the dying, not on the fact that dead people can't testify. (In some other cases of hearsay, we could just get testimony from the source, but here, of course, the relevant party is dead, so that might ground an exception.)
oh, did you know that I can't see who wrote what post? Is that intentional?
Posted by Fontana Labs | Link to this comment | 11- 5-03 9:19 AM