How a Law Should Be Written
Most philosophy of law asks what the laws should say; this one asks how they should be written, and treats bad drafting as a diagnosable disease with named faults and named cures.
Nomography, Bentham's own coinage for the art of drafting laws, takes legal writing as a craft with its own pathology. He catalogues the ways a statute goes wrong as a piece of composition: ambiguity, obscurity, overbulk, entanglement, redundancy, all the failures of expression that leave a law meaning less, more, or other than intended. Against each fault he sets a remedy. The conviction driving it is that the form of a statute is a moral matter and not a technicality, since a badly written law hands the deciding over to lawyers and judges. An appendix sets out the logical instruments he used across all his own work.
- legal theory
- legal reform
- jurisprudence
- logic
- transparency
Enter a dialogue
- When a person is defeated by a contract they cannot parse, is the obscurity mere carelessness or something worse?
- Isn't calling bad drafting a moral failing an overreach, when a clumsy sentence is surely just a clumsy sentence?
- How do you tell an ambiguity that a careful drafter could have removed from one the subject itself makes unavoidable?
- What ease, what habit of the old legal style, must a drafter surrender to write a statute that cannot be misread?
- If every fault has its named cure, why has legal writing stayed obscure for so many centuries after you diagnosed it?