>Ideally, it is intended to work like a machine with as little room for human discretion as possible Actually, these laws are the most dystopian. One concept

>Ideally, it is intended to work like a machine with as little room for human discretion as possible Actually, these laws are the most dystopian. One concept that seems to have this design goal is strict liability: what you intended, what you believed, what elaborate conspiracies were created to deceive you, none of that matters. If you did it, you are guilty and will be punished, full stop. This is attractive because it's much harder to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone did something "with malice" or "intentionally" than to prove that they did it. This tends to show up around youth sexuality, probably because that's an area where social norms have changed quite a bit. It doesn't matter if the 17.5-year-old you slept with presented a fake ID saying she was 18, took the lead in all sexual activity, etc. It doesn't matter if she shows up in court and begs the judge to let you go. People whose 18th birthday has not elapsed cannot give consent, full stop. Sex without consent is rape, rapists are bad people and should be made to suffer, so you're going to prison and then on to the sex offender registry. Your judge, and the judges you appeal to, all think this is ridiculous, but their hands are tied because the law was written like a computer program that failed to consider edge cases. (Literally edge cases - those that fall near numerical boundaries. Some states have patched their legal systems to allow consent between partners who are close in age but under the normal age of consent. Some have, but only for heterosexual couples. Some still haven't. My state actually tried and convicted two teenagers as adults for raping each other at the same time.) Same with child porn. Child porn laws were created a time when taking and distributing a picture could only be part of a commercial publishing operation. Anyone who creates or possesses an image of a nude child is guilty of a child pornography offense. Seems reasonable. Now every teenager has an internet-connected camera in their process, and we found an edge case we forgot: the child pornographer is the child him/herself and the consumer is her long-term boyfriend, also underage. Still just as illegal and the same punishment is required. You would hope prosecutors would turn a blind eye, but "the law is the law." These rather salacious examples are the most high-profile, but I'm sure the same problems happens in more mundane areas of law as well. At some point you have to trust judges and you have to empower bureaucrats to help people get out of obviously ridiculous situations. Laws are much more difficult to change than computer programs; there needs to be a reasonable amount of discretion for a manual override until the law can be fixed.