Lojban, a predicate logic-based language designed to be unambiguous, is also a good choice. Though there's a difference (usually harder) in learning a human to a programming language. Interestingly, its ancestor, Loglan, originating in 60s predates logic programming itself.
Be aware that switching languages entirely for the law introduces two new problems: translation from the thoughts one has in their head into the target specification language, and that means not everyone who is subject _to_ the laws can all _know_ the laws. That circumstance reminds me of the church services in Latin -- "uh, trust me, the Lord said you should definitely mow my lawn or risk firey damnation. He said bring beer, too"
Now, while using a programming language mildly runs afoul of those same risks, the difference in my mind between a programming language and using lojban (or conlang-o-choice) is that the programming language uses the same vocabulary (plus or minus) just with more rigor in the links between the words. One need not already know "re'azda" is "house" in order to figure out "house.value"
Yeah, that's what I meant with difficulty. A programming language is basically specified logic that can utilize any human language (vocabulary) as basis. But you lose freedom since you're forced to structure your logic in a specific pattern. Lojban requires you learning a new vocabulary to regain flexibility while retaining the rigor. The benefit of this in law becomes apparent when considering the importance of semantics over syntax.
