I am all for a proper justice system, but I am also big on the subject of definitions. What is classified as "too weird"? What are the exact actions and line that define legal and illegal pedophilia (as a starting example)? If we are going to be writing laws that define what is criminal and what isn't, we need to get right down to the very bones of each and every bill we potentially write up for parliament.

Personally, I am campaigning for transparency and efficiency in the government and its justice system. One main point I make is the problem of laws that become out of date and are not updated regularly, primarily due to our age of technology changing our views of what is morally wrong or illegal. I say we constantly review our laws when new cases challenging said laws arise. If the case demands us to change or update the wording of the law, then we should be passing it on to parliament for confirmation and have the case tried based on whether or not the law has successfully updated. Of course, the right to a speedy trial may arise, in which we would need to declare a time-limit where the government and paliament have a defined timeframe to draft, submit, and accept/veto the proposed changes in the law before the case or trial can continue. Now, these are just suggestions, so everything is still up for debate on how it will all work.

P.S. I also agree to the previous comments made about constituting a "national jury" of sorts instead of those comprised of random peers that many justice systems currently use.