I think you've missed the GP's issue with MI's solution which is that inevitably the result of jailing people for photographing rabbits is that people who photograph rabbits end up getting jailed.
That is, this "solution" has a hell of a lot of collateral damage. Entirely blameless people will get their lives turned upside down. Lots of people. Not one person who pissed off a policeman once in a blue-moon, but hundreds, may be thousands. These people will lose their jobs, have difficultly getting employment, may lose their home and worldly possessions, all because of they spend time in prison after violating a stupid law.
Worse still, MI assumes that the law will get repealed, and you assume the law will get repealed quickly. Both are statements without supporting arguments. It is reasonable to assume that if the act of arresting people over something so blatantly stupid causes a public outcry, that is, if it garners widespread media coverage, then the law might get amended. But it's NOT clear that the enforcement will get that outcry, and in some ways, it's more likely to get the outcry if the law is abused than if it isn't.
Outcry or not, the law will not be amended "quickly", because local and State governments do have a process for amending laws, do have an agenda they're trying to implement at the same time, and so are at best likely to take months to repeal an unpopular law. At worst, years, or never. If there's just one stupid law, then yeah, shortly before an election it's likely to be addressed. Dozens? Well, sure, shortly before an election one or two of those dozens, the one or two that the media is focusing on, will get repealed. Everything else? They may get repealed, if there's time, during the outcry itself. If the outcry dies down, then the law will get forgotten and continue to get enforced. It may even be that sympathy evaporates for the victims, as the lack of rationality of the law gets forgotten as the blame shifts to new victims for continuing to violate the law despite the fact everyone knows about it now because of the previous outcry.
It's a very bad idea. Everyone, police, prosecutors, judges, and so on, needs to use their discretion and decide when it's a good idea to enforce something and when it isn't. We've already denied judges that discretion with mandatory sentencing laws, and that's not done us any good at all. How is denying prosecutors and police discretion going to help?