The only justifiable law is to secure the unalienable rights of the people among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and/or promote the general welfare, meaning EVERYBODY'S welfare and not a targeted group or demographic.
Making it illegal to intentionally hit a person with your vehicle falls within the concept of the unalienable right of the pedestrian to not be intentionally harmed or killed. Some might attach a concept of morality to that but it mostly falls within the concept of one person's rights ending where another person's rights begin.
Jay walking laws fall within the category of promoting the general welfare. The authorities measure the inconvenience to the person who has to go to a cross walk to cross the street legally against the inconvenience and traffic jams that result when motorists try to avoid hitting pedestrians if pedestrians can legally walk in the street just wherever. In that case the practical need to keep traffic moving in an orderly fashion justifies a small amount of inconvenience to the pedestrian. Morality has nothing to do with it.
But if there is no consequence for breaking a law, then too many people will not be inclined to obey it when it is inconvenient to do so. So the fine or legal action resulting from violation of the law is not a 'punishment'. It is a consequence for disobeying the law.
Certainly laws that do nothing to secure our rights or promote the general welfare should all be questioned. And the federal government should only be passing the laws that are necessary for all the states to function as one cohesive nation--all others should be left to the states, counties, and local communities.