The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is a controversial piece of legislation in the UK at the moment, considered poorly-written and authoritarian by its detractors. The Computer Misuse Act 1990 was apparently also considered rushed and ill-thought-out when it came about, and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991* is generally held up as the gold standard of poor legislation in the UK. "It is still referred to today as a classic example of what not to do", according to the Guardian.
But what qualities make a good, well-thought-out piece of legislation? And what are commonly held up as the yins to the Dangerous Dogs Act's yang?
Answers don't necessarily have to be about the UK, but that's the perspective that I'm asking from.
* The Act requires muzzling dogs of certain "types" in public, where the types are based loosely on specific breeds. However, whether a dog fits into a particular type depends on a court's appraisal of its characteristics.