Verified answer

I would start off by saying no. Then I would think about your question a bit deeper and realise you were asking it because 12 random people decide the fate of court participants every single day, and nobody bats an eyelid at that.

However. I would still say no because deciding one's fate and sorting out laws are two very different things.

I might. I've read some of those laws and they do make sense,

  Yes, provided that all pertained to Canada & had been interpreted by our Supreme Court & not struck down as ultra vires the constitution of Canada.  

  Never presume that an uneducated person can't make good choices.  That's the  "myth of the expert" fallacy (to presume that one must be expert in the subject to have a relevant opinion about it).  A few years ago, U.S. scientists got confused over Metric & the Queen Anne measures the U.S. uses, & a satellite to Mars ended in disaster.  It was a total loss of  about $400M.

  An equally bad error is the "myth of the idiot" fallacy (to presume that one who is uninformed about the subject is less-biased & so able to make fairer opinions about it).  The last 3.6 years of constant folly by the U.S. "president" shows the error of this. 

Is there no place where the Brain-dead Orange Fraud Catamite Brigade doesn't desperately try to "defend" his overweening incompetence?  Good for a laugh, anyway!  

I might. I've read some of those laws and they do make sense, sort of. 

- All boogers must be buried in tiny coffins, and never desecrated by rolling between fingers.

- Great Danes must wear underwear or a jock strap.

- To match oranges, lemons and limes will be called yellows and greens, respectively.

- When vacuuming, if you pick up a small piece of paper that refuses to get vacuumed, and throw it back down on the floor, you will receive five wedgies. 

It almost feels that way already.

Bureaucratic bull crud has that even though marijuana is legal in my area now, those imprisoned previously for it were not released, because they broke what was the law at the time.

That's just stupid and counterintuitive.

So much taxpayer money could be saved to let free those who broke a law that doesn't even exist anymore. 

If they legalize something or change a law to me that implies that they were incorrect in approach, in their thinking, and in the general philosophy of what is universally acceptable conduct vs. what is not... and are openly admitting it by changing the law. 

We'd probably be better off.  the highly educated haven't done such a good job.

Other really dumb people, and / or those who believe they can exploit those laws for personal advantage.