If life on Earth were simple enough that "good enough" laws were even
possible (not difficult, not tricky, but
possible to formulate at all even by a legislature populated by very stable geniuses), then we would not have evolved such large brains.
After all, Gödel showed that any powerful system of rules will contain inconsistencies. Even closed tautological systems like the Catholic religion contain flaws (that was the premise of the movie "Dogma": two banished angels find a loophole in God's Law and attempt to destroy the Universe) and theologians literally get to define God.
Any system of human law must be inconsistent, so we perforce rely on human judges, which means we rely on their [lack of] wickedness, i.e. their culture, and we are back where we started.
> If we had better laws people wouldn't be as wicked.
Meaning no disrespect, that is a proposition to which I assign a low truth value.
I read "Walden II"[1] at an impressionable age, and I thought for a long time that if we could just make the "right" laws, construct the right system, then we could easily achieve Utopia. I was too young to realize that the novel is actually "behaviorist" propaganda.[2]
My own experience of humans, and something Gandhi said, later convinced me that law, no matter how good or wise, cannot of itself make for good people. I've never been able to find the actual quote, but it was something like, "No system [of government] relieves the people under it from the burden [or obligation] of trying to be better human beings."
If prison worked to convince people to take up that burden I don't think recidivism rates would be as high as they are, eh?
So, again, I don't reject that good and just laws are a vital part of a good and just society, but I see them as a result, not a cause.
In any event, well met.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_behaviorism