Law

Surveillance

What if CCTV was installed for live internet access in all courts in the country, and all 'defendants' will be given the choice whether they want a case to be recorded?

Reasoning

At the moment, magistrates and judges have immense power. Very few people have even been into these courts and are completely unaware of what is going on. Wouldn't it be interesting to be able to see what is going on in these places and to see how surveillance of the establishment may affect their practices?

Remove Illegitimate powers

What if the powers of those in the law society, many of which are bogus, were radically reduced?

There is a simple test question which can help remove immoral and invalid powers that our dominators have grabbed over the years. 

Is any particular law that the authorities are enforcing something that any man/woman has a 'right' to do?

What if those powers/laws that fail the test, were removed?

Reasoning

The logic behind this question is explored at length in the online book (available for free) called 'The Most Dangerous Superstition.'

The above 'what if' is based on this question.

Can voting and subsequent legislation give men and women (in the guise of police, judges or corporations) the right to do things that were immoral without that vote? i.e. can voting make something right?

We aim to be as open as possible to the response to these questions. However, we wonder if through the use of that simple question, the law could be completely upgraded and radically simplified, and crime could be restored to its original meaning – fraud and/or causing harm or loss. Would victimless crimes be crimes?

What if all prisoners who have caused no loss or harm and have committed no fraud were released?

What if a group of men and women, unconnected to the Law Society, from all ages and walks of life, was created to take a good look at the legal system, and revolutionise and simplify it as above?

What if they  spend time in the courts around the country watching what is going on, speaking to both 'defendants' and law society members?

What if they took over the task of deciding which cases are in 'the public interest', whatever that is?