God I hate this judicial philosophy. If legislation was perfect we wouldn't need judges. Every gap in the legal code that some lawyers can concoct is not valid grounds for exploitation.
Yes it is, by definition. Advocate for better legislation, rather than expect lawyers to pinky-swear not to use whatever loopholes they find.
An analogy might be: "Every bug or unescaped input in my application is not valid grounds for attackers to pwn my server! How dare they!"
The attitude in your comment, that the law should be interpreted with perfect strictness and machine-like lack of concern for obvious blunders, is in my opinion really hurting the United States today.
I disagree. Code is also designed that way. The humble admission and responsible actions to secure against abuse are the same. The difference is in the specific interpretation timings. Code is a priori deterministic and law is a posteriori deterministic, with exceptions on both sides (code environment or human interpretation changes).
It delves into multiple possible stances regarding the nature of laws. I think Justice Thomas falls squarely into one of the explored stance.
PS: also, an extended version: https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/cse.htm (that's the one I have)
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:
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.
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.
We're heading that way in terms of contracts and blockchain.
And insofar as "the law" is a contract between the citizens and government, you'll find more and more government regulation being implemented in blockchain in the future.
It is the job of legislators to write laws that are as free from faults as possible. It is the job of judges to protect the people from unavoidable faults in legislation.
Tic tac toe? Rock, paper, scissors?
Are you suggesting the law, any law, can ever be made so simple?