The law is not executing algorithms, so it can not in principle even be considered for Turing completeness. (Turing completeness means that it is equivalent to

The law is not executing algorithms, so it can not in principle even be considered for Turing completeness. (Turing completeness means that it is equivalent to a Turing machine. I think you could probably argue that a police officer's execution of the law can be Turing complete, even given the fussiness of interpretation you describe.) I think the idea you're actually looking for is that: "No law can be complete" in the sense of Goedel's incompleteness theorems.