As computer programs show us, the only way to remove ambiguity is to be incredibly specific. In practice, this would mean laws that are very, very long, and hav

As computer programs show us, the only way to remove ambiguity is to be incredibly specific. In practice, this would mean laws that are very, very long, and have to revised very frequently. Why? Because you can't formalize away the fact that humans can't think of everything ahead of time. We make laws about your rights regarding messages you write on paper, then telegraphs and telephones and email come along. Either you try to interpret the law to cover them, or you revise your definitions of "messages" to include or exclude them. In a "specify everything" system, everything that the courts currently interpret would have to be sent back to the legislature. The effect would depend on what you do with gray areas in court. Option 1 would be "if a case is ambiguous, put it on hold until the legislature clarifies the law." That would clog up the courts and effectively merge the court and the legislature. Option 2 would be "decide cases based strictly on existing law and let the legislature revise things for the next go round." That would create a lot of absurd outcomes, where a small loophole, with no ability to apply "common sense", means innocent people are convicted or guilty people are freed.