Is it Better to Tolerate Minor Defects in the Law than to change it?

It is better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be better to change the law than to tolerate minor defects in it. Discuss what you think determines when it is better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it and when it is better to change it.
___

In society, laws are established as a means of providing order and fairness among the citizens. The United States, with its democratic form of government, has adopted a checks and balances systems in its creation and administration of laws. Specifically, the legislative branch is in charge of writing the laws with the executive as a vehicle of enforcement. The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the laws. Since humans draft the laws of our nation, there will be errors. When these errors are merely technical or some other insignificant factor, it might be wiser to not take actions to change the law. However, when the errors are substantive (even if considered "minor"), it might be better to correct the laws to avoid confusion and room for interpretation.

A defect in the laws may be quite insignificant in its implications. An example of this might be a spelling, grammatical or formatting error when laws are formally placed in the books. These types of errors may not be worth correcting since our nation has limited resources and more pressing problems to address. The correction of such insignificant errors will add to the red tape and bureaucracy of government. These minor defects should be left uncorrected more so in cases where the law is not applicable to citizens in general but, for example, only affect one small industry.

It may be wise to correct minor defects in a law if it is substantive in nature--that is, if it affects the actual meaning and interpretation of the law. For instance, if a law in the books states that the speed limit of a certain highway is 75 mph when it, in actuality and as reflected in traffic signs, is 70 mph, a lot of problems may result. People may find these "minor" loopholes and profit from them through the justice system. When there is an opportunity, to clarify a black and white situation and avoid problems of interpretation, the government should correct the law.

When a minor defect (whether technical or substantive) in a law is exposed, the agency in charge of making the law should perform a quick costs- benefits analysis to determine whether the law is worth correcting. Some defects may be so trivial that it would waste precious resources in the effort of correcting them. Other defects may be substantive and could be a center of an interpretation dispute in future occasions. These disputes, in the form of lawsuits, may end up costing the government more than it would have had the law been corrected. Indeed, in this time of economic austerity, the government should focus on priorities, not just when it comes to law matters, but in all spheres. To spend resources on matters that do not have any real affect on the citizenry's well being and welfare would be irresponsible.