[nadieyninguno1]

The legal system long ago worked around this - they allow virtually every person at every level to exercise "discretion." An officer can frequently choose how to handle an issue, a prosecutor can choose not to prosecute, etc.

Occasionally, we see well meaning policies going astray - the "must arrest someone" domestic calls in jurisdictions are a contentious-but-great example. Sometimes calls get put in spuriously and now someone must go to jail for a relative non-issue / non-altercation that a neighbor called in.

[raxxorraxor]

It is good that the agents have this wiggle room, because you cannot craft a law that could handle any case. This is why it is important to have competent people that represent the state and see that laws are followed. On the contrary, people should be incentivised to constantly reflect if a law really serves justice. If not, the legislative branch needs to change it.

Problem here is that the success of policing in politics is measured by number of closed cases or by how many people got convicted after their arrest. By crime rate and success in fighting it. This of course creates perverse incentives for the most part. Budget fights and politics leave justice far behind.

If there is no more crime in a country, it shouldn't mean that police are getting pressured because they arrest fewer people. But exactly that would probably follow in a political discussion.