At some point you have to let people make decisions. You can't "logic" your way out of everything.

But... the mistakes! Yeah, so what? What about the mistakes of the rules that a human at the scene is not allowed to overrule?

We have that at quite a few workplaces, where employees are not allowed to make any decisions, only work through an algorithm. It's not pretty. Think customer support of very large companies. Or the mistakes of algorithms and "AI", which we already have too, e.g. when we read stories about insurance "automating" decisions with ML?

To be clear, what is the advantage of discretionary enforcement for traffic offenses? Letting certain people off with a warning even though they broke the law? Why is that a feature and not a bug?

Anyway, we do have a way to let humans make these decisions. You can go to court and challenge the ticket.

>Why is that a feature and not a bug?

Because the law and the punishments for breaking it do not reflect how socially acceptable breaking said law tastefully is.

It's easier to just randomly hand out small tickets a few people who are egregious and a few who are unlucky than it is to amass the political capital to find a more consistent solution.

Except it's usually not "mistakes", it's intentional bias. A "normal, reasonable" person is someone who has a "donated to the police officer's association" sticker in their car window, and "assholes" are everyone else.