Law term paper

[...]
“The more complicated a code is, and the more concepts it employs, the more intricate its drafting becomes, the more likely it is that gaps that are unprovided for will open up between them, and the more opportunity there will be for misunderstanding and confusion among those applying its rules. Each concept employed by a code should, therefore, be shown to be necessary. That it is familiar to those at home with the law which the code is to replace, or that it has played its part in the development of that law, is not a sufficient reason for preserving it in the amber of that code. A good many of the concepts familiar to criminal lawyers completely served their turn long ago.

It is, therefore, unfortunate that the structure adopted by the Law Commission for its 1989 draft Criminal Code for England and Wales in several key respects mimics rather too closely for either comfort or simplicity traditional, but no longer very useful, ways of thinking about criminal liability.”
[...]

[...]
“There is a related point. The fact that some regulation is necessary does not mean that extensive regulation is necessary. To cite an example that will be treated more fully later - the need for safety regulations in air commerce does not necessarily require restrictions on freedom of entry. Moreover, regulation can easily expand beyond the scope appropriate to the conditions that first produced it, and often for reasons quite unrelated to those originally deemed pertinent. The new reasons may be sufficient to justify the extended reach, but intelligent policy-making requires that they be treated on their own merits. "Logical" extensions of regulation are not always logical. Similarly, the conditions that first produced regulation may well change to the point that regulation should be reduced or drastically revised.

We shall not discuss in detail the reasons why competitive results may properly be altered to serve other policy ends.”
[...]

[...]
“Policymakers have often artificially limited the range of participants in the regulatory process to that of government regulator and industry regulators. On the contrary, there is, in fact, a much greater choice of potential participants, including a wide range of commercial and non-commercial third parties. Given the context specific nature of most environmental issues, the ability to recruit various parties will inevitably vary. An important step in the regulatory design process, therefore, is to identify which parties have the capacity/potential to contribute to regulatory policy in a particular environmental circumstance. This exercise has the benefit of not only formally discounting options which are not viable, but more importantly, of ensuring that the full range of options has been considered. It would also be judicious at this point to assess (at least in a preliminary fashion) the preparedness and/or willingness of these parties to fulfill any possible regulatory role.”
[...]