Legal Instrumentalism

Legal instrumentalism is a theory that emphasizes the importance of the effectiveness of law in achieving desired outcomes, rather than focusing on the intrinsic value of law or its historical development.

Legal instrumentalism views law as a tool that can be used to achieve a variety of desired outcomes, such as maintaining social order, promoting justice, protecting individual rights, or facilitating economic growth.

Legal instrumentalism assumes that law is a neutral tool that can be used for good or for evil, depending on how it is used.

One of the main criticisms of legal instrumentalism is that it is too focused on outcomes and ignores the intrinsic value of law. Critics argue that law has an intrinsic value that should be respected, regardless of its effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes.

Jeremy Bentham is the legal theorist most closely associated with legal instrumentalism. He argued that the purpose of law is to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Legal instrumentalism evaluates the effectiveness of a law by looking at its actual outcomes, rather than its intended outcomes, historical context, or moral foundations.

According to legal instrumentalism, a law that reduces crime rates is an example of an effective law because it achieves the desired outcome of reducing crime.

According to legal instrumentalism, a law that increases crime rates is an example of an ineffective law because it fails to achieve the desired outcome of reducing crime.

Legal instrumentalism is independent of legal positivism, meaning that it is not necessarily opposed to or in favor of legal positivism. Legal instrumentalism is primarily concerned with the effectiveness of law, while legal positivism is primarily concerned with the nature and sources of law.

Legal realism is the legal theory most similar to legal instrumentalism. Both theories emphasize the importance of the effectiveness of law and the need to evaluate law based on its actual outcomes.

The primary difference between legal instrumentalism and legal realism is that legal instrumentalism is more focused on outcomes, while legal realism is more focused on the process of law. Legal instrumentalism evaluates the effectiveness of law based on its actual outcomes, while legal realism examines the way in which law is actually used and applied in practice.

A legislator who drafts a law that is designed to reduce crime rates is an example of a legal instrumentalist approach to law because they are focused on the effectiveness of the law in achieving the desired outcome of reducing crime.

A legal scholar who writes an article about the way in which a particular law is actually used and applied in practice is an example of a legal realist approach to law because they are focused on the process of law rather than the outcomes of law.

From a natural law perspective, the primary criticism of legal instrumentalism is that it is too focused on outcomes and ignores the intrinsic value of law. Natural law theorists argue that law has an intrinsic value that should be respected, regardless of its effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes.

From a critical legal studies perspective, the primary criticism of legal instrumentalism is that it is too simplistic and does not take into account the complexity of law. Critical legal studies scholars argue that law is a complex and contested phenomenon that cannot be reduced to a simple matter of achieving desired outcomes.