<p>AriesAthena has made several concrete suggestions to address specific problems/perceptions – a constructive step in the right direction for those who are discussing change. </p>
<p>Another analogy that may make the current system seem less unusually “stacked” – from administrative law in this country. In most cases that originate in an administrative agency (such as, for example, proposals to suspend an individual’s driver’s license or professional license – like the opportunity to attend a college, the rights to drive and to practice a licensed profession are also considered a “privilege rather than a right”), agency personnel also serve as investigators, prosecutors, fact-finders, and even “sentencing” authorities who decide the appropriate “punishment” (e.g., 90 days license suspension for accumulating a certain no. of points from speeding tickets). “Appeals” may also be made within the agency, to a designated official charged with reviewing initial decisions made by hearing officers. </p>
<p>What might be different, from what I have heard so far, is that there is still a right to judicial review after an administrative agency decision is final. This is so that the party aggrieved by that decision has the right to have an independent judicial officer review claims of procedural and substantive unfairness, including the type of complaints about which I am reading here. Even then, however, the court will presume the administrative decision to be correct (that is the law, so that we don’t have to justify our agreed upon decisionmaking systems in each and every case!), so that the burden is on the party challenging the administrative decision to rebut that presumption – to prove that the decision is tainted by some illegality, abuse of discretion, clear factual error, or error of law. </p>
<p>As daunting as that may seem, it is a burden that I have seen met on many occasions, even by litigants who do not have the benefit of counsel. The only thing in this system that is certain is that those who choose not to challenge the decision must live with it. </p>
<p>Most importantly, what this type of independent judicial review does ensure is that each aggrieved party has a forum for his or her complaints about the investigation and trial, and the right to be heard, without possibility of further penalty, by an independent decisionmaker who takes an oath to be neutral and to listen, and who has authority to decide that some error in the investigation or trial warrants either a different result or a new hearing. </p>
<p>Is there some analogous independent EC review by an entity other than the same one that just rendered the HV conviction? Are there perhaps some “firewalls” within the EC, to ensure that the EC prosecutor does not also serve as EC trial judge and EC appellate court? It would surprise me somewhat if there are not, particularly with the esteemed reputation of an institution that has produced four Supreme Court Justices on the line.</p>
<p>Perhaps this is a ripe time to ask, to understand how the EC really works, and to examine how a better understanding of this process might promote actual and perceived neutrality? And, ultimately, actual and perceived justice. </p>
<p>That’s all I’m going to say about this because I don’t know how the system works. It is up to all of you who are living within this community of honor to find out the facts about the process you voluntarily agreed to live under before condemning it, and before deciding whether and how it needs to be changed. </p>
<p>Something to think about – and to talk to each other about. With civility please, ladies and gentlemen . . . .</p>