Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio
That would only be possible if the politicians wrote every law without the influence of a special interest group.

Additionaly every law would have to cover every situation of a case to give it full justice. Emotional and mental state of the accused, amount of information provided by physical evidence (finger prints, DNA etc), validaty of the witnesses... all aspects would have to be written into the law and looked up to have a law that was purely based on its writings to be just.
The problem to answer you is that i don't know if we're talking of the same thing, but i'll try to explain myself. Here we call the science not law, but "derecho" wich comes from "directum" (rect, oriented to or by, from the latin) the "derecho" (that would be translated to english like "right") has four sources: jurisprudence, law (ley here, "lex" from the roman language), doctrine and custom. Between the four they cover every hole mentioned avobe by you, so there's no need to establish them in the law, because there's others sources that the judge, jurists and lawyers take in account, and that anyone without a minimal knowledge of the science will never know, therefore cannot make a true judgement in this complicated matter, that's not a question of morality or simple custom, but right, directum.

If a law is just the majority of citizens should be able to understand that law. If the average citizen cannot comprehend the law nor the evidence showing a conviction of a person for not obeying that law then it would not be just to convict someone.
In criminal matters the person doesn't have to comprehend the type described by the law, they just have to know that the action they're performing has some disvalue of action, i mean that the action is seeing as bad even in the enviorament outside the law. In civil matters the subject is different, but civil matters doesn't carry conviction anyway.

What kind of country would you like to live in where the laws cannot be understood without a decade of specialist training?
Well here you don't need all that time to comprehend it with suffiently to know what is the action that follows the right. To comprehend all the extension that the law can achieve is another thing, but the common citizen doesn't need to know that, only, of course, if they are in a jury.

Jurys are as flawed as the rest of democracy. A democracy has the citizens elect professionals to rule the country. A jury elects if a professional should or should not pass sentence on the accused.[/
Again the certain and eternal true of democracy is the best. Even if we achived true democracy in some time i always will want to be judged by an authoritarian state, so you don't really have to accept that formality if you know that those people's are just ignorant.