[Spivak]

Except for when it is code. If you do something that is legal under the letter of the law or when the law is ambiguous you are supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt and granted leniency. If this wasn't the case then lawmakers would have no reason to write laws precisely.

It's the other situation where law stops being code. If you do something that is technically illegal but probably oughtn't be then the law can be reinterpreted in your favor.

Assuming you followed the absolute letter of the law with your totally-not-a-brothel then you would be fine (until the law is amended).

[burkaman]

My point is that laws are often intentionally not written precisely, because it's impossible to enumerate every type of violation in advance. Looking at my own state's prostitution law, you would need to define the following things to get a precise law:

"money or its equivalent"

"offers"

"adultery"

"fornication"

etc.

The law is written in terms of broad concepts that a judge can interpret. In most cases there is no such thing as "absolute letter of the law", partly because English makes that impossible, but mostly because legislating such strict specific definitions would be a bad idea. I think the impossibility of bug-free software makes it clear that we wouldn't want laws written like code.

[pavel_lishin]

Many states do define those very precisely.

[paulddraper]

Laws aren't code because they are written in English (or other similarly ambiguous languages).

Select parts of laws may have the rigor of a programming language, but the greater portion expresses things for humans, with human ambiguity.