If the laws created in the past with intelligent people, why lawyers find loopholes on it?


If the laws created in the past with intelligent people, why lawyers find loopholes on it?

In: 0

Because situations change over time and people ( aka lawyers ) can’t think of them all. It’s like coding and debugging

Lawyers are paid extremely well to argue against the laws to keep criminals away from the justice they deserve. That’s why we need Batman.

Because life isn’t black and white.

An example: Law, though must not kill another. Doing so is murder.

Seems simple, striaght forward, unproblematic, right? What about soldiers? What about in a country where execution is legal? Basically you end up having to rewrite simple laws to allow for so many exceptions and so many circumstances that things just fall between the cracks.

Because those laws don’t need to be intelligent, they need to be robust. And you don’t get that without years of testing them. The problem is that once we find a “bug” in the laws, lawmakers are reluctant to fix them sometimes. The real question is why do we leave obvious bugs in our laws?

1) technology changes not anticipated by the writers (eg you wouldn’t think to require people to wear seatbelts before the invention of a seatbelt, but normally a lot more complex). Laws are not updated very often, and a law may be being applied decades or even centuries after being drafted.

2) if you have two teams of equal size and intelligence, and one has to write a very expansive and long set of laws (think of maybe Obamacare or something on that scale), and the other team is just entirely focused on their small section of that (lets say a subsection effecting medical devices) and you can bet there’s a good chance they’ll find any tiny technicality you missed.

3) sometimes people drafting a law aren’t that good at it. These are proposed by elected representatives, a lot of whom are not particularly well trained in this. A sinister subset of this is that the loophole is put in specifically by people with an interest in it being there, either by lobbying or potentially by deceiving a gullible legislator.