Implementing the law, especially in a common law country like the US is really difficult. The case law that is of primary importance here is often contradictory and fuzzy, as well as changing constantly. In addition the written law doesn't capture the whole situation.

In a civil law system it's more likely achievable, but I'm quite sure the requirements aren't that clear cut judging from the text.

Civil law codes are often just as ambiguous as common law systems. The only difference is that in a civil law system, you can’t firmly rely on precedent, so a judge can interpret the law against you just because he doesn’t like you, even in the face of contrary precedent.

That’s in part why international business to business contracts almost always specify a common law jurisdiction as the required venue for any lawsuits.

Well, there’s the law (federal, state, etc), then the additional regulatory rulings (federal, state, etc), then the as-applied department policies. Not really a lack of “law” but a mess of constraints that need to be deciphered into functional requirements with footnotes, matrixed to testing and preserved/maintained for the next guy. Ugh.. I want to charge the gov. 2k hrs for just thinking about it today.

16 months is a long time, especially when people are in jail and they should not be there. However in my experience as software developer nothing is simple, but everything can be done.

First problem coming to my mind: do they have the budget to pay the software developers to add this new functionality to the software? Do they have to ask the money to someone else, maybe to the very politicians that changed the requirement?

Then when this is settled there are the usual problems of analysis and implementation. Probably also where to get that input that they didn't have before. It could be a large project. But 16 months, ouch.

Implementing "the law" is anything and everything but simple.

That’s as insightful as people saying “ just follow the constitution” when in reality people have been fighting about the exact meaning for centuries. Most laws leave some room for interpretation. This is pretty much necessary because the law can’t specify each corner case.

Same goes for software requirements. Good requirements make the intent clear but allow implementers some flexibility. Specifying everything in minute detail is usually a recipe for disaster.

"Implement the law" in a software product is as utopian as replacing judges with computers that "implement the law". Now does it makes sense why it is not possible?

Perhaps software isn't the right place to implement the law?