No, it’s not about outcomes-based v prescriptive regulations.
It’s about the law dealing with the safety issue and penalising on the basis of safety risk.
For example, let’s take the requirement for a data originator to conduct an annual review of the accuracy of AIP information it originated. The ‘crime’ - if it is to be a crime - should not be merely failing to do an annual check of the accuracy of AIP information provided by the originator. Rather - if the rules are about safety - the ‘crime’ should be deliberately failing to do the annual check and, as a consequence, incomplete or inaccurate information remained in the AIP and, as a consequence, there was a material increase in the risk to air safety.
As it stands, the ‘crime’ is mere failure to conduct the annual review. That’s why so many operators said stick it.