Even if you've never practiced, you are unlikely to believe that the inferior reasoning employed in result oriented jurisprudence improves or clarifies the law. It is pernicious to the degree that false rationales are subsequently incorporated into the body of case law.
I have practiced. Have you?
Result oriented jurisprudence is essential to proper interpretation of result oriented law, ie...all law. Law is written to obtain a result. Hence result oriented jurisprudence (interpretation of the law to achieve the result set forth in the law) does not necessarily entail false rationales, or inferior reasoning. Look at 4th Amendment issues for the best result of that
Perhaps you are confusing some concepts here. Would you be referring to what is commonly known as "legislation from the bench", which does entail the problems you set forth