[WikiEN-l] Re: status correction

[Michael Snow]

steve v wrote:

>--- "Ben E." <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>What we had was a transfer of the duties of ArbCom
>>to the community,
>>seemingly against their own principles and ours at
>>[[Wikipedia:Administrators]], which shows that
>>adminship can only be removed
>>by Jimbo Himself or by that very ArbCom.
>>    
>>
>>Hopefully, the committee can expand and define
>>the case to completely reflect it and the
>>    
>>
>community's > wishes.
>
>To resurrect a case requires dabbling in the sinister
>arts -- not often associated with justice or fairness.
>I would argue that 're-deciding' a case cannot be
>fairly done without actually 're-hearing' the case. 
>
>Understandably, the Arbcom would prefer to make things
>easy on themselves (theyve been through a lot after
>all), but --just to cheer things up --I contend that a
>re-deciding an old case without re-hearing it is
>improper -- putting aside the /double-jeopardy/
>hung-jury/ mistrial/ precedents involved.
>  
>
Well, you were right to put those aside, because even if people in 
arbitration cases were entitled to the rights associated with criminal 
procedure (which they're not), double jeopardy wouldn't apply in this 
case. After a mistrial or hung jury, the next step normally is to have a 
new trial if the parties still want to litigate. Since no final verdict 
was reached, it's not a second proceeding in the double jeopardy sense; 
it's a resumption or a restart of the first proceeding. Which is exactly 
what you're getting, since the Arbitration Committee has retaken the 
case after the RfA "jury" declined to reach a resolution to the case.

--Michael Snow