> Good lawyers and good judges allow bad laws to be taken advantage of. If the law says it, it should be allowed (for leniency to the accused) or the law should

> Good lawyers and good judges allow bad laws to be taken advantage of. If the law says it, it should be allowed (for leniency to the accused) or the law should be invalidated due to a lack of strict construction. A mom hears a loud noise coming from her kid's room and she goes up to find her kid is jumping on the bed and the mom comes in and says "Stop jumping on your bed!", so he does. Five minutes later, she hears the same noise, and comes in and the kid is jumping on the bed again, and tells the kid "I told you to stop jumping on your bed!" and the kid says "I'm not jumping, I'm hopping!" and starts to argue about the difference between jumping and hopping, and mom says "Just stop hopping on your bed!" and goes back to the living room. Almost immediately, she hears it again, this time the kid is sitting, but bouncing up and down, declaring that he's not jumping or hopping, but bouncing. Again, the mom tells him to stop it. A few minutes later, she hears jumping again, only this time, it's on HER bed. Finally, the mom says "Do not jump, hop, bounce, spring, leap, or otherwise propel yourself upwards from any bed, couch, chair, or any other furniture." -- I disagree entirely with your opinion. It is often that intent is crystal clear, but a lawyer is able to weasel their way into convincing a jury that there's a slight ambiguity in the law. The problem of course, is that then lawmakers have to write incredibly verbose and difficult to understand legalese in order to ensure there are no loopholes. Of course, in the spelling out of the law, it's easy to accidentally create a loophole. A rule that states "No jumping on the bed" is clear of intent. Mom shouldn't have to include many near-synonyms of "jumping" and specify that it means ALL beds.