How did Jeremy Bentham’s approach to legal reform differ from Sir William Blackstone’s approach?

Jeremy Bentham and Sir William Blackstone held fundamentally different views on the nature and reform of law. While Blackstone served as a historical expositor who sought to systematize existing English common law, Bentham was a radical reformer who viewed the common law as a confused, dangerous, and inaccessible system.12

Their primary differences include:

• Purpose of Legal Writing: Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England aimed to describe and explain the law as it existed, often finding historical and rational justifications for established institutions. Conversely, Bentham argued that Blackstone failed to distinguish between what the law is and what it ought to be, a confusion Bentham believed stifled necessary social and economic reform.21
• View of Common Law: Blackstone viewed the common law as a repository of wisdom derived from long acceptance. Bentham, however, mocked it as "dog law," arguing that its case-by-case, retrospective nature failed to provide citizens with clear, advance guidance on how to avoid liability.1
• Approach to Reform: Bentham advocated for the codification of law based on the principle of utility—the "greatest happiness of the greatest number"—to ensure laws were accessible and rational. Blackstone, while acknowledging the constitution had faults, generally acted as a defender of the existing political and social order.132