> In this sense, law is similar to code, but far easier to exploit.

I would disagree. I feel like programmers see logical contradictions or loop holes in laws and think that if they make the argument in court, the court will segfault and they will go free.

In reality, courts use more inductive reasoning than computers, and aren't as easily tricked.

Courts are easily tricked, the hacks needed are just different from what most programmers assume them to be. The whole job of lawyers is hacking the court to get a more favorable outcome. If this wasn't true it wouldn't matter which lawyer you have since the court would always interpret law in exactly the same way.

> If this wasn't true it wouldn't matter which lawyer you have since the court would always interpret law in exactly the same way

Have you ever litigated?

Litigation isn’t about “hacking” the court. If that’s how a lawyer is selling themselves, you’re being taken for a ride.

Cases are about resolving novel ambiguities in the law. The vast majority of disputes never make it to court. The two sides lawyer up and one of them is advised that based on the facts the precedent is in the opponent’s favor. As such, settlement is advisable. In a minority of cases, precedent is mixed or not applicable—the facts and circumstances are truly novel with respect to the law. Given the law is finite and reality is infinite, this happens more often than you’d think.

Lawyers thus argue how the law should be extended. Remember, case law is law in common law countries. Judges opinions aren’t interpretations per se, but acts of rule making.

Courts are made up of humans. Good lawyers put time into jury and judge/jurisdiction selection. Good firms hire former court staffers that know the judges presiding over the case. It's not meant to be easy to game the courts because it's a privilege.

> In this sense, law is similar to code, but far easier to exploit.

I see way too few computer engineer criminal masterminds to accept this hypothesis at face value. ;)

They're just that good ;)

A better measuring stick might be lawyers and judges regularly applying the law in inconsistent ways.

The biggest thing I've learned from good lawyers, is that with the law - there's always an appeal, a different interpretation, and a challenge or request for exemption from a rule.

Applying to be a lawyer in and of itself can be a process of figuring out the correct paperwork to fill out and asking for a special exemption on a piece of missing information or a missed deadline.

Police discretion is a great example imho. Watch everywhere in your day to day as laws are applied based on a subjective real time evaluation of the situation.

And most cops barely even know the laws themselves. There have been multiple times I’ve heard cops incorrectly cite state laws.

tax loopholes, crazy defense strategies, corporations doing blatantly illegal things (or that should be illegal) and getting by on technicalities. All of them are essentially legal system hacking.