Re: 'Write only'?
To the extent that they do use Latin, they only use it for specific legal terms. Habeas corpus is Latin, and it's used in legal texts, at least in English common law countries, all the time. Does it mean exactly what it would have meant to Romans? Literally, it translates to something like "that you have the body" and they didn't use it as a legal term, so no. But it also doesn't mean the same thing legally that it did when first used as a legal term. In its first usage in the 10th century, it refers to punishments, and it's one of the things you're not supposed to do on a whim, but only when you have a reason. Now, it generally refers to the right to trial, which is similar in spirit, but quite different in effect. For example, in its initial usage, passing a law saying you're a criminal, then arresting you without trial, would not violate your right to habeas corpus because the law was passed; it would only count if I just arrested you because I felt like it that morning. Nowadays, that would violate your right to habeas corpus because I'd at least have to let you defend yourself, even if I was allowed to pass such a law which in many countries I am not.
That applies to those little bits that still use Latin words, but most laws use the local language in all its vagueness, and Latin is not immune to that either. Many laws leave things to the decision of a court. Sometimes, this is intentional. Any time the word "reasonable" appears anywhere, it means "the judge or jury will figure this out when it comes to it". Sometimes, it's because the people who write laws are not always as smart at encoding their desires into legal language as they think they are. That was just as true in Latin as it is in English or any other language you name. It would even be true if we all adopted Lojban. The problem is not solvable unless you are willing to reverse the cryptocurrency fans' credo, making "law is code", which is both almost impossible and undesirable.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
