That critique might sound good in theory, but I think it falls flat in practice. Hearsay is a rule with more than 30 exceptions, many of which seem quite technical and arbitrary. But I have seen no evidence that the public views legal systems that employ this sort of convoluted hearsay regime as less legitimate than legal systems that take a more naturalistic, Benthamite approach.
In practice, even laypeople who are participating in trials don’t really see the doctrine that lies beneath the surface of evidentiary rulings, so I doubt they form their judgments of the system’s legitimacy based on such details.
That critique might sound good in theory, but I think it falls flat in practice. Hearsay is a rule with more than 30 exceptions, many of which seem quite technical and arbitrary. But I have seen no evidence that the public views legal systems that employ this sort of convoluted hearsay regime as less legitimate than legal systems that take a more naturalistic, Benthamite approach.
In practice, even laypeople who are participating in trials don’t really see the doctrine that lies beneath the surface of evidentiary rulings, so I doubt they form their judgments of the system’s legitimacy based on such details.