I have felt this way as well and wonder why we can't encode laws into some sort of machine code and study it, test it, iterate it, debug it, and optimize it like we do with computer programs.
More seriously, this means you also have to accurately encode all the things the laws refer to, even when those things are vague judgement calls. It's easy to say "you can only have a noncompete agreement if it doesn't make it unreasonably difficult to find another job in the same industry", but hard to express "unreasonably difficult" or "same industry" with the kind of precision we expect from code. A sufficiently evil company would just pay a lawyer for a few days to find a loophole in whatever definitions you can think of.
There's a reason the primary use of this is cryptocurrency conversion - it's a lot easier to enumerate all the failure modes in "give me n of A and I will give you m of B".
While Leibniz is widely known for his mathematics and philosophy, one of his lesser known ideas was the relation between law and computation.
There is a small research community around it today. Look up Computational Law and Computational Contracts if you are interested.
[0] https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~cr4bd/4630/S2021/
[1] https://exercism.org/tracks/x86-64-assembly
Update: Exercism seems to only be an "exercises" platform and doesn't actually have any teaching materials of its own?
Don't need to encode it in some sort of machine code. Just need a git repo with the law so we can submit a PR to the CA assembly and get this fixed.