I believe most of the institutions unchanged for a century must need, not tweaking, but re-thinking. What is the aim? Including research of best practice elsewhere, and including latest technology, how should it be reached?
It is not disputed that the NHS needs more than tweaks. It must be equally obvious the way the country is governed does, and the civil service does (see today's Times, on DVLA, for example). Could anyone truly believe the optimum way to learn and retrain during a lifetime is by going to a building and taking notes for 3 years, with a peer age group?
But when it comes to law, there is possibly the greatest gap of all between what is done just as it always was, and the faintest chance of what might be a desired outcome.
Having any proposals, discussions and decisions on anything cannot sensibly be done best by completely excluding the public's input. Perhaps only a few people have specialist knowledge or experience. The public need to be are able to initiate first ideas, or to add a fact which would leap-frog them, drastically revise them, or warn of bear-traps, right from back-of-envelope stage.
Hungary was interesting, because they were creating a 'new' country, so designed all systems anew, first deciding the aim, then the means. They were in a hurry, so later adapted as they considered best practice, or became aware of shortcomings, in their first draft of how to run a country.
Certainly a politician, civil servant, senior lawyer, or police officer is unlikely to have the faintest comprehension of being totally helpless and in the power of someone who can and may kill them and even get away with it. The nearest their imaginations might go is contemplating if they would themselves confidently go ahead and do something Putin would want them killed for, just after the Salisbury incident.
Maybe not? Then maybe they could glimpse how much less would an abused child or woman 'tell' on someone who in all their experience has been malevolent, life threatening, and will almost certainly twist any situation to make ostensible 'rescuers' and their tick-box 'help' a threat, enraging the abuser even more, and make the powerlessness even more total.
The objective of the powerless, too, is nothing to do with the objective of a legal steamroller. Breaking the wing mirror of an important man might result in a prison sentence equal to that for breaking the back of your wife or child. There's a fat cost to the tax-purse, for locking you up, and for all the court procedures. In prison you merely learn from fellow villains better tricks to get away with the same offences.
If the wealthy man gave evidence against you, you may want to punish him, but he will be hard to reach. If it was your wife or child, though, they will not doubt you will ensure they are punished more than you are, for their own offence, of reporting you.
A social work lecturer told her class "statistically, two in this hall joined the profession only in order to abuse children" Men in uniform, lawyers and doctors feature high on the tables of wife-abusers, so wherever women turn, nobody is truly trustworthy to be on their side.