The Judiciary

I've been tempted to post a new idea over the last couple of months but have lacked the motivation. That was until I heard about the bike fucker.

How is it any different to someone using a sex toy? This case just highlights the continual sexual inequality in society:

If a woman has sex with an inanimate object it's viewed as an empowering experience. After all why should she need a MAN to have sexual pleasure? Women will often brag to each other about the sex toys they own (I've been unfortunate enough to overhear such conversations at different workplaces over the last 10 years).

If a man has sex with an inanimate object it's because he's a sad lonely tosser. No bloke would ever admit that he cracks one off when he's not getting any.

Anyway I've gone off the point somewhat, what law has this guy broken?
It was his own bicycle in the privacy of his own room. If anything, the cleaners should be done for invasion of privacy.

He's now on the sex offenders register. Unfortunately when people hear "sex offenders register", they think peadophile, rapist etc.

If I Ruled Britain (That includes Scotland) I would introduce a Quality Assurance Department for the Judiciary. Obviously you have to tread very carefully here as you wouldn't want to end up with a dictatorship like in Pakistan. The QAD would be run by the Judiciary to maintain its independance from the Government.

So what would the QAD do? I hear you ask. (Well I don't as no-one reads/comments on this blog.)
They would act post-verdict on any case that results in a sentance (not necessarily custodial), regardless of plea. They would determine two factors:

1. Was the sentance correct?
2. Were any fundamental errors made?

For factor 1 they would then have the power to increase or reduce a sentance if it was found to be out of step with similar cases.

Factor 2 can only apply to not-guilty pleas. If a person has admitted guilt (Like the bike fucker) then it is counter productive to review the case. The main points I would want the QAD to look at are "presumption of innocence" and "beyond reasonable doubt".
It is for the prosecution to prove you guilty, not for the defence to prove you innocent.
It amazes me that any woman ever went to jail for a Sudden Infant Death trial. If you cannot determine that the child was killed then how can you therefore prove that they were murdered and who the murderer was?
The idea of the QAD is it acts as a turbo boosted appeals process. I have no problem with guilty as hell convicted criminals rotting in jails, but the thought of someone being convicted and incarcerated on flimsy evidence doesn't sit well with me, no matter how 'disturbed' the individual might be. The sooner their appeal is dealt with and they get a fair trial, the better.

Another theory I have with the judiciary is that because they are constantly immersed with criminal behaviour, their perception of society is tainted compared to everyone elses - If you're a hospital cleaner and you deal with shit all day long then it probably bothers you less.
By employing a greater number of judges and periodically rotating them, perhaps they would have a more rounded view of our society and what is right and wrong.
Also, if you then had a sudden backlog of cases you would have the workforce at your disposal to process them quicker. Then all I'd need to fix is the CPS - having cut the beaurocratic ties that currently prevent the Police from doing any policing.

Right that's all done. What should I fix next? ... I know, incapacity benefit!