[ramanujan]

The law should be expressed in code and evaluated on a computer, with all dispute confined to the values of the inputs (e.g. time of commission of a crime, geolocation of violation).

It is currently written in legalese and executed by a judge. This does not consistently produce the same result for the same inputs at different locations in spacetime. If it did produce the same results, we would not need lawyers or judges to determine what was legal; we could simply make API calls and evaluate functions.

You could only realize a vision like this in a new country, but that is what seasteading is for.

[binarymax]

While it would be nice to think of law as pure enough to be calculable by machines and algorithms, the reality is that the law is subjective...the inputs you speak of are too many and the situations that occur result in problems that are NP-hard.

[Dn_Ab]

While I do not disagree with you, implicit in your post is an assumption that humans can solve these NP-hard problems. More likely, most examples are either not NP-hard, the average case is easy, easily approximated or we simply don't do well in handling legal cases at all.

I would offer Strong AI-complete as a counter suggestion.