[scryder]

>Law ... monstrocities

We already have that, though, and "sufficienty written" is a very dangerous standard.

The easiest way to guard against "all" malicious input is write a vague law without clauses that demand mens reas, which means that regardless of whether or not you knowingly broke the law, by violating its provisions, you automatically did.

The leeway to "serve justice" also tends to be the leeway to condemn justice or to interpret law in ways it was never designed to account for.

The lawcomic, written by a lawyer, has a good section about the kind of overcriminalization you're discussing:

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1031

[dragonwriter]

> The easiest way to guard against "all" malicious input is write a vague law without clauses that demand mens reas, which means that regardless of whether or not you knowingly broke the law, by violating its provisions, you automatically did.

Most criminal laws have a mens rea component (strict liability is rare), but almost none of them have a requirement of knowing that the act was illegal. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is not limited to strict liability offenses.

[scryder]

"The easiest way to avoid loopholes" and "frequency of use in real life" are not equivalent.

I'd certainly argue there are plenty of vague, overbroad laws, regardless of the frequency of strict liability's usage.

I'd further argue infrequency actually increases the likelihood that otherwise innocent individuals are swept up in such cases: they have less reason to suspect that they've done anything wrong.