Formal logic would lead to bad things, for example, imagine a state bans sex with animals. You'd be guilty of having sex with your wife because she's an animal.
The law isn't precisely stated so formal logic is the wrong tool.
Law uses different sorts of logic. If you are curious, take a look at LSAT questions. That's the sort of logic and reasoning lawyers value.
> preposition
It's called proposition, so I take that as evidence for a complete lack of familiarity with the topic of logic.
> Except ...
except the point is completely wrong but for the exemplary sentiment, that some interpreters of law don't even pretend to be reasonable.
Put all the citizens in that state in Jail. What were they thinking!?
The lack of definitions, the fuzzy logic is the problem. Yet, I am often amazed by accurate law codes, and I am far more astonished by how wrongly I and others use those words contrary to their original usage. I accept that words are defined by their usage. I cannot accept competing definitions. Point in case, I wouldn't say humans are animals, and historic usage proves me right AFAICR from reading on free will etc. At best, a human is a mammal. But you seem to want to use the word differently, so, I agree that this doesn't really work.
> It doesn't.
It's illogic, inconsistent and incomplete, is that what you are trying to say? Or is there some higher order logic that computers can't calculate?
> and that is fine
From your description of what the law should be, "fine" could mean anything. Should I attempt to understand the intentions? Perhaps you are saying, you yourself don't have an issue with it, but that is not generalizable. In my own terms, that's an opinion. And that's a matter of fact. Albeit, I'm bad with maths and computers, so I can't prove it a fact.