A Code, Not a Muddle
Should a nation's law be gathered whole into one clear written code a citizen can read, or left as the scattered, judge-made patchwork the English inherited? Behind the pamphlet's sales pitch stands that question.
Bentham's abiding conviction was that a complete body of law could be drawn up whole, on utilitarian principles, and would serve any people better than inherited custom. He called that projected whole the Pannomion. Against it he set the English system he despised: law made piecemeal by judges after the fact, scattered through precedent, knowable only to the profession paid to interpret it. A written code, by contrast, fixes the law in advance in language a citizen can read without a lawyer. The Proposal presses that case as the serious theory beneath the offer, that codification is not tidying but a different and better way of making law at all.
- legislation
- legal theory
- legal reform
- legal interpretation
- legal codification
Enter a dialogue
- Where the law has gaps, you say, lawyers and party leaders fill them with law of their own making. How does a complete code take that power away?
- Can any code truly be drawn up whole and gapless, or is the muddle you attack the honest shape of law?
- You call unwritten common law a fiction, 'the offspring of each man's imagination'. Why is law that no one has written down not real law?
- A code should be a guide for the citizen and a bridle on the judge. How can one written text both instruct the public and restrain the court?
- You want every law printed with the reasons behind it, which no code had done. What changes for citizens and judges once each law must explain itself?