Laws already attempt to encode intent through technical word choices, scoped definitions, and careful construction. Judges and lawyers attempt to discern the intent by careful reading and logical deconstruction.
When the lawmakers and judicial interpreters are good at their jobs this works great. Good lawmakers draft good laws that are clear in their intent. Good courts make good decisions by applying reasonable interpretations of the law.
Bad lawmakers fail to make their intent clear. Bad lawyers take advantage of vague laws to argue for unreasonable intent. Bad judges let these bad arguments fly.
How does encapsulating the "intent" into its own section of the law fix the problem? Bad lawmakers will still write vague intent sections as well as poorly defined implementations. Bad lawyers will abuse the vague intent sections to argue for exceptions and novel interpretations of the implementation section. Bad judges will let this fly and warp the system further through bad precedent.
"Bad lawmakers fail to make their intent clear. Bad lawyers take advantage of vague laws to argue for unreasonable intent. Bad judges let these bad arguments fly."
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.
> 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.
"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."
This isn't true. Matters of law and how to interpret the law are determined by the judge and provided in the jury instructions.
"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."
This example isn't anything like what I'm talking about.
When the lawmakers and judicial interpreters are good at their jobs this works great. Good lawmakers draft good laws that are clear in their intent. Good courts make good decisions by applying reasonable interpretations of the law.
Bad lawmakers fail to make their intent clear. Bad lawyers take advantage of vague laws to argue for unreasonable intent. Bad judges let these bad arguments fly.
How does encapsulating the "intent" into its own section of the law fix the problem? Bad lawmakers will still write vague intent sections as well as poorly defined implementations. Bad lawyers will abuse the vague intent sections to argue for exceptions and novel interpretations of the implementation section. Bad judges will let this fly and warp the system further through bad precedent.