That's true in any situation that isn't pre-judged.
It would be a lot harder if you had no written laws to help evaluate whether or not you had broken the law in the first place though.
The more subjectivity exists, the greater the uncertainty.
My impression is that criminal law may be a bit more cut-and-dried. Actually proving it might present some hurdles, but in the end, it's simply a matter of determining whether the defendant actually committed the crime or didn't commit the crime. But in civil cases, that's harder to peg.
I recall one case that made the local news where a drunk driver ran over a 13-year-old boy on a bicycle. She was already found guilty in the criminal case against her, but then there was a wrongful death lawsuit as well. In the end, she was found 60% responsible, while the owner of the bar she was drinking at was considered 30% responsible, and the city was 10% responsible for poor lighting and no bike lane where the boy was hit.
I wondered whether there was some scientific or mathematical formula that they used to figure all this out.
Written legal codes, particularly regarding regulations, do often encourage gaming the system. Effective defence lawyers do often find technicalities or precedences that they can use in their favour.
There's certainly a very good case for simplifying many aspects of the legal system.
I agree, and I would also suggest that it might behoove the politicians and those in the legal system to try to restore some semblance of faith in the system. I can sense that there's some degree of irritation and disappointment from certain circles that not everyone believes wholeheartedly in our political and legal systems, nor gives proper deference to the agencies in their employ.