Why not work with the original document and remove the options for human interference?

That's a reasonable topic for debate. I was more spitballing than suggesting. My research has been more focused on the problem than the solution. At some point I will think about that more.

As for codification, if it is extremely simple it might be a good idea. For example, we really only need one law with regards to restrictions on a person (if one choses to be a party in the Social Contract):

If you directly infringe upon the rights of another there will be consequences.

It would require a little bit of elaboration for specific infringements, but I think this is essentially all you really need in code.

For example, for some infringements the penalty would have to be death (a forfeiture of the right to live). For others it could be community service or some other restitution for the aggrieved party. All the other laws just don't need to be there at all. Like, do we need speeding laws (which are a racket, even if they don't need to be), or should we rather inform people of the real hazards of speeding that aren't an obvious infringement on another's rights (like, for a school zone, the danger to others is difficult to deny, but for the freeway it isn't as clear, i.e. look at the autobahn) and let them choose?

I don't know. It's something that requires a fair bit of thinking and debate.