Laws start with intent; e.g. to limit an undesirable behavior, or encourage a desired behavior. However, in order to create the law, and subsequently enforce it, that original intent must be translated into written language. Because translation is virtually always a “lossy” process, the inevitable difference between original intent and resultant language becomes the soil from which unintended consequences grow. The unintended consequences are usually initially seen in the form of criminal or civil court actions based on a novel interpretation and application of the law as written, which was not a part of the original lawmaker’s intent.
An example of this can be found in the way RICO laws (originally created as a basis for prosecution of racketeering by organized crime) have since been used to prosecute a myriad of other activities such as insurance fraud, tobacco company collusion, and small-time drug dealing.
The point is this: anyone responsible for any portion of content of a proposed law must be cognizant of, and on guard for, the likely interpretation and application of the law in ways other than those consistent with the original intent.
According to Association of the Bar of the City of New York, as quoted by William L. Anderson and Candice E. Jackson in Law as a Weapon: How RICO Subverts Liberty and the True Purpose of Law
“The draftsmen of this bill have made changes which sweep far beyond the field of organized crime. . . . [M]any of these changes have not been adequately thought through. The bill as presently drafted frequently hits targets which were not intended and misses those which were. . . . Even more disturbing . . . is the impatience which [the bill] shows for constitutional and procedural safeguards” (1970).
Note that this is not intended to single out the particular issue of RICO in and of itself; the same pattern of unintended consequences occurs in all sorts of legislation, from every point in the political spectrum.
