I'm trying to be descriptive not prescriptive. It's not really about whether or not I'm happy with any given result. Let's say that suddenly there's a law tha

I'm trying to be descriptive not prescriptive. It's not really about whether or not I'm happy with any given result. Let's say that suddenly there's a law that makes it illegal for the police to take anything out of a car AND we also eliminate all human judges. This completely stops civil forfeiture. Everyone is happy. One day someone steals a priceless wax sculpture that represents invaluable cultural history for an area. This person throws the sculpture into a car and then drives off. After a short car chase the police disable the getaway car. The day is saved! Wait not yet. It happens to be a very hot day. There's two things that can happen. The first is that the police can leave the wax sculpture in the car and because it's so hot it melts. The locals get mad and riot because the police willfully let their cultural history turn into a puddle. The second is that a police officer takes the wax sculpture out of the car, but then that officer is arrested for violating the law mentioned above. Then the locals get mad and riot because the government arrested the hero who saved their cultural history. A lot of governance is a balancing act to prevent anarchy from taking over. If a human is in charge someplace then they can overrule a law that either doesn't make sense or is otherwise problematic. This can lead to tyranny, but hopefully the government itself is setup to prevent this as much as possible.