lol, you picked out my "Killing is wrong unless X is true" quote but ignored my follow up which acknowledges that prime directives are insufficiently flexible.

lol, you picked out my "Killing is wrong unless X is true" quote but ignored my follow up which acknowledges that prime directives are insufficiently flexible. I'm not even suggesting starting off a legal system from scratch. I'm saying that it would be good to begin by encoding our current system into a purpose-built language and compiler, and of course one should start with the basics and build upon it, using the language and compiler to find inconsistencies, clashes etc. I think your point may be that laws currently do have nuance (eg murder vs manslaughter vs...) which is all fine. By all means load those rules into the system too, but the point of the language and compiler is that while you're doing this you pay attention to compiler errors along the way and at least be aware when a change (to a rule, or the meaning of a term or type) caused some other change that you didn't expect. Eg: changing the meaning of a word here makes one law ambiguous and causes these two to clash. Using it in law school is a great idea. It's where it should begin.