Quote Originally Posted by smcmike View Post
This isn't a bad answer, and I'm not trying to trap you, only to demonstrate that your example of a simple rule is not that simple. If I were to break your answer down, I certainly would ask for a definition of premeditation, but I'd also ask if it is the same as intent (it isn't), the definition of intent, the definition of human beings, the definition of killing, and whether there are any exceptions or additions to the above definition (there are several of both). I'd also point out that the precise definition varies to some degree from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and that in my jurisdiction "murder" doesn't require premeditation at all - it's an element for first degree murder, but second degree murder can be committed without it.

The source of all of this in my jurisdiction is hundreds of years of rulings, with a thin veneer of statute laid on top. And we still debate the application all the time! You think juries never argue about the definition and application of premeditation?
And to amplify this, this is with binding rulings from authorities. Applications of rules are hard in all non-trivial cases.

For reference, here's Florida's statute defining murder: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...s/0782.04.html It's long and has many subparts--and is incomplete. Most of those terms reference other statutes for their meanings. In application, there are hundreds if not thousands of different decisions that must be weighted and compared to come to a ruling. None of this is easy or self-applying. Different courts differ hugely on very similar facts. Different States differ, and the federal courts differ again. Civil law is even more complex.

Rules are hard. The law needs clarity because the stakes are so high. In a non-competitive, zero-stakes game, having clear principles and leaving it up to the discretion of the table makes a lot more sense to me both from an effort perspective and from a fun perspective.