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
- When a person cannot read the law that binds them without hiring a lawyer, is that a fault or the natural order?
- Isn't a code fixed in advance bound to go rigid and stale, where judge-made law at least bends to the case in front of it?
- How does a written code differ from a mere tidying-up of the same old law under new headings?
- What does a nation lose, and what does it gain, when it takes the making of law out of its judges' hands?
- Can any code truly be drawn up whole and gapless, or is the muddle you attack the honest shape of law?