ABSTRACT
Neglected topics sometimes call for lengthy introduction. So it is here. Legal systems operate through various legal processes, including processes for designating officials, for creating law, for applying it, for enforcing remedies, and for imposing sanctions. It is possible to evaluate not only the results of a process, but the process, too. Consider this example:
It will be apparent that in Example (1) both the lawmaking process and its results were bad. Its results were bad pardy because they disrupted peace and security, high values in any legal system. The process itself was bad, as a process, at least because lawmaking processes controlled by self-serving minorities are unlikely to yield results good for all. Such processes lack efficacy as means to good results-“good result efficacy.” Democratic legislatures, on the other hand, have significant “good result efficacy,” for they are far more likely to yield results good for all. (This is not to say, however, that they guarantee such results.)
applying process and its results were bad. Its results were bad pardy because they were unjust: punishment of the innocent is a form of injustice. The process itself was bad, as a process, at least because law-applying processes that fail to provide for impartial and de liberative fact-finding run a high risk of error. Again, such pro cesses lack efficacy as means to good results-“good result efficacy.”
