The one end of procedure
What is a court's method actually for? Bentham allows procedure a single end, the correct decision, reached with the least delay, expense, and vexation it can manage.
The whole and only proper end of procedure, Bentham holds, is a correct decision: the guilty convicted, the innocent cleared, the party in the right prevailing, reached with the least possible delay, expense, and vexation to those caught up in it. Everything a court does is to be judged against that end and nothing else. Against it he sets a natural system modelled on how a sensible head of a household would settle a dispute, hear everyone, look at everything, decide on the merits, with a single judge and no artificial bars to relevant testimony. A rule that does not serve the correct decision has no claim to survive.
- utility
- legal theory
- jurisprudence
- evidence
- utilitarianism
- access to justice
Enter a dialogue
- A lawsuit wears its parties down with delay, cost and worry. What, on your account, must a court owe them besides a correct decision?
- Before hearing any facts, your code presumes the one who sues is more likely right than the one sued. Why does the cost of suing point that way?
- Your book gives procedure two aims, executing the law and sparing people hardship, and says they always conflict. Why does serving one obstruct the other?
- You call procedure adjective law, since it needs the substantive law it serves as an adjective needs a noun. What follows if that law itself is bad?
- You would bind judges to no fixed amounts of compensation, punishment or delay, though that sounds like arbitrary power. Why is a fixed number the greater danger?