WTF Lawyers

It is fairer because it is predictable rather than arbitrary. The essense of criminal law is the people must be able to determine in advance whether they are allowed to behave in a particular way or not. As soon as you introduce an arbitrary element, you run the risk of abuse. All very well to say that the "intent" was this or that but if the government has "intent" they should and must express it.

To do otherwise puts us into the position of a dictatorship where we are ruled by the whim of those enforcing the law. These may be benevolent but, on the basis that power corrupts, such benevolence is not likely to last for long.

Fair enough, and we want to avoid arbitrariness, but couldn't we introduce something to avoid loopholes which says effectively "Does the drafting or implementation of the law make clear its intent to a competent, impartial person"?

So let's take as an example the parking loophole which allowed people to get off fines on the basis that the yellow lines weren't terminated in a T-shape. Does the fact that the line isn't terminated in a "T" indicate to a competent, impartial person that it is not intended to restrict parking? Of course not, therefore the loophole should not be available.

Of course this just transfers the arbitrariness problem to the definitions of "competent" and "impartial", but it might solve some problems.