And it develops for the same reasons: in a complex system there's going to be all sorts of weird corner cases, and some of them are bad, so you write some more code/laws to deal with those outcomes ...
Not just "ADD MORE LINES OF CODE", which you make sound is like some concrete reality of how things always get done. It's not. And no one should strive to do things this way.
In other words, growing complexity of the system to deal with new cases is past of least resistance.
Who is refactoring this law code? No one. It gets written once and stands forever. It gets repealed once and a while, but it doesn't get actively refactored.
Many of the laws on the books are there due to lobbying, not logic, reason or need. Some are based on moral outrage to propaganda, some are due to businesses wanting greater leverage of their market and greater control over the entry-barrier. Many laws are totally unconstitutional but remain because someone must be successfully challenged which is hard when the law is meant to target the homeless guy you just don't like sitting on your corner who wouldn't have the means to hire a proper attorney.
I think what the original poster was getting at is that AI enforcement, with a broken legal system is a recipe for abuse and injustice.
The entire idea of selective enforceability is an affront to the concept of justice.
I've had my car searched for drugs by police in Arizona without cause other than they thought I "appeared to be on drugs" due to the fact they made me stand outside in the snow for 10 minutes while questioning me during a bogus traffic stop and I eventually started to shiver. I was driving through AZ on my way from Colorado to California... two places recreational marijuana are perfectly legal (by state standards) yet if they would have found even the smallest amount of weed in my car even if someone else had just dropped it somewhere (they check literally everywhere -- including rifling through my tea bags with their dirty paws), I would have been in jail on felony charges.
Granted I made sure my car was immaculate because I know how insane the people of AZ are when it comes to "criminal justice" and all it cost me was an hour of travel time. But the fact remains that there is no presumed consistency in law and felonies are a big deal and have consequences that reach far beyond some localized legal affair.
I have known people who have picked up felonies because they were doing something innocuous beside being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And when we start talking about AI enforcement, it's a scary concept because a felony means that for instance you could be picked up on federal firearm charges because some program found a slingshot in a picture of your bedroom on Facebook which gave them cause to issue a warrant to raid your house. And then you aren't able to flee the country because you can't just walk down to Mexico like you used to be able to because of the AI surveillance.
Taking the high-horse and saying people should trust in the system and just do their duty as citizens is great and all, but that type of ignorance is also why we have the highest prison population in the world. People who could be benefiting society even if only marginally, who are forced to be strictly welfare cases.
Not to mention, this isn't solving any problem - just opening the door to a bunch of new potential problems, so what's the point, other than lining the pocket of some random government contractor who probably lobbied for the tech in the first place? This is inane.
The result?
Expectation: A government that wants to adapt good technology and morally acceptable ways to have a great sociey.
Reality: A big company that "tricked" the government into thinking they will reach their expectation, when really they're just attempting to drain the government for its money, as well establish somekind of "power" in the society.
Having said that, I guess all that happens is statutory law remains simple, but case law grows more complex as the body of judicial decisions grows? What we seem to be missing is a "refactoring" process to periodically rewrite statutory law to replace bloat in case law with a more otimised statute. Like coders, politicians prefer to work on shiny new features than maintaining existing features?