Hi Cold Steel,
"During a disciplinary procedure, what would the response be if you wanted representation? An advocate?"
As others have answered, that would not be allowed.
"Why don't they have a group of unbiased men, a prosecutor to present the case against you and an advocate that would represent the accused?"
The elders who meet with an individual being judged are called a "judicial committee" however it is not like normal court proceedings. One of the first big problems with this quasi-judicial process is the men are untrained volunteers who for the most part have other secular responsibilities. Thus a lightly loaded elder body may put considerable effort into a case and carefully research both the Bible and Watchtower provided material to insure the best judgement possible is given (that is, at least consistent with how the system is suppose to work). However, it is just as possible, little time is available or case after case has frustrated the elders and there is a shift towards greater harshness. Cases are reviewed by HQs and Circuit Overseers, therefore there is some review, but local elders are usually quick to learn what is required to insure all the paper work for these cases are in order. Of course, the victim of the process gets to see none of the notes taken or content of the forms set to HQs.
At elder's school sample cases are sometimes reviewed. I clearly recall one case, where local elders decided to wait for a congregation member to return from a motorcycle trip before they met and decided on the case. Their decision was ridiculed by the presenter at the school -- the not so subtle message was clear -- you *the elder* are in control, don't let the member dictate how the proceedings will happen.
Then, there is something that is nearly completely insane about this entire enterprise. The "case" is not really about what the person did or did not do. Yes, of course, that is established at the outset, yes, sister so-and-so, you did commit fornication with so-and-so. But once that is established, the judgement is in regards to "repentance". In some cases this presents no problem, since the person has not "turned around" (i.e. stopped the proscribed behavior) and that is well established, a move to disfellowship will be in order. But in other cases, it essentially is a game of mind reading, trying to determine if the individual feels sorry for what they have done. Very subjective, especially for men who have no formal training in things like psychology or human sexaulity.
Most cases involve "sexual sins", however folks who leave the faith can face reprisal for doing so (hence all the 'fading' talk you hear here). There is no time limit to this, but tends to orbit around signs of no longer being obedient to rules that govern members of the faith. Thus even after leaving for a year or two, someone who openly celebrates Christmas may find themselves subject to this process. Or consider the example of this forum itself. Some on the forum are active Witnesses. Absolutely none of what they post may be incorrect or even unfavorable towards the faith. Yet, if their posting became known it is entirely possible, that could land them in hot water that could eventually lead them to being disfellowshipped for apostasy!
"It just doesn't seem right when the judges are the prosectors and YOU have no representation. It certainly doesn't seem fair."
Of course! There are very good reasons why court systems in most countries work they way they do. Why everything spoken in court is recorded. How evidence is handled, how questions are asked and responded to, etc.
"I understand, too, that you can appeal a decision to elders in a different KH. But have you ever known of a decision to be reversed? This isn't a rhetorical question; I really don't know. Also, if a person goes into a disciplinary court, if that person is humbly repentant, is that normally enough to get him/her off the hook? Or in many times has the decision already been made?"
If a decision to disfellowshipped was appealed and the appeal committee overturned the decision the individaul would be informed. Regarding, "humbly repentant"... indeed, a young couple engaged to marry may have sex before they are married, if no one knew of this and they confessed, perhaps breaking down in tears, then a decision to "privately reprove" could be given.
Cheers,
-Randy
