Yes, given some limitations and assistance.
It wouldn't be so much an artificial intelligence or natural language processor so much as a database of relationships between entities. However, some legal language left over requires a human's intellect to be able to really reach an accurate answer.
You're restructuring legal code to be relationship-based. You could have an enumeration of intentions, such as "deliberate" or "by negligence." You could have an enumeration of public status to determine if a person is of official title or office, or in a position of authority, which would make certain actions illegal for them but legal for others. Your computer program would be massive and its database would have an incredible amount of tables.
With enough data, anything is possible.
You're still forced to keep your program very simple without any room for the human element. Distinctions such as "forcible" for sexual assault or "excessive" for police are not answerable without the usage of an advanced artificial intelligence or a human on stand by. This makes your program unable to deem a perpetrator's sentencing.
There's still nuance and interpretation left over. 634
For example, what about unanswerable questions?
What if I have the following query (C# LINQ style):
bool isLegal = incidents.Where(i => i.Perpetrator == i.Victim).First().Select(i => i.IsLegal());
Great, now we have an incident query where the perpetrator's the victim. Or worse yet, victim == null is true. There's no victim. What does the program do?
Your program would be a fancy legal version of Mayo Clinic's symptom checker. Another good data set is the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) code set (Example here.) Sure, you can look at them and draw conclusions from them and quickly retrieve certain answers with known data and relationships among finite data sets, but without incredible intelligence, you will never use it as a standalone tool that everyone can use to replace the courtroom.
So for your benefits, all of them would be fine and good, but you will still have lawyers to understand precedence and how it relates (in an abstract way) to a new incident, and you still still have jurors to interpret the information. The amount of edge cases is too huge, and you still require the nuance of understanding things like intent, premeditation, etc.
And who actually uses the program? Sure, it might be good for teaching students but it's a needle in a haystack. For the ICD codes example, would a non-doctor know to search for iodine deficiency?
These things are abstract and it can still be too complicated without a specialist in law. 57