Balancing test

A balancing test is any judicial test in which the jurists weigh the importance of multiple factors in a legal case. Proponents of such tests argue that they allow a deeper consideration of complex issues than a bright line rule can allow. But critics say that such tests can be used to justify any conclusion, upon which the judge might arbitrarily decide. A balancing test is any judicial test in which the jurists weigh the importance of multiple factors in a legal case. Proponents of such tests argue that they allow a deeper consideration of complex issues than a bright line rule can allow. But critics say that such tests can be used to justify any conclusion, upon which the judge might arbitrarily decide. In the United States, many legal issues, which had previously been considered settled by the imposition of bright-line tests through Supreme Court precedents, have been replaced by balancing tests in recent years. When referring to evidence presented at a trial, the balancing test allows the court to exclude relevant evidence if its 'probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.' In other words, if a particular piece of evidence is substantially more prejudicial than it is probative, it may not be allowed in as evidence. One balancing test from American administrative procedure law applies to the question of due process of law, a consideration arising from the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution. Due process questions concern what type of procedures are appropriate when the government takes away property or a privilege from an individual; the individual would argue that the government should have, for example, given them a hearing before taking away their driver's license or cutting off their Social Security benefits. This balancing test, of which it weighs considerations: