THE PROBLEM WITH JURIES .......AND OF COURSE DISCIPLINARY  PANELS       ( Article by Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi )

Disciplinary panels , which set out to deal with complaints about a player's alleged misconduct ,  are required to undertake a similar role to that of a jury. They must review the evidence ,  and reach a verdict regarding the question of guilt in relation to the breach of a specific rule or offence.
Well, according to the author of an article in the Buffulo Law Review juries often make mistakes, especially when prevailing attitudes, beliefs and prejudices blinker their thinking. When prejudgement precedes a trial , then justice is in jeopardy.
In an ideal world , juries are formed from randomly chosen people on the electoral roll , who are then accepted by both sides as having no prior knowledge of the accused, or his past history, which might well colour their judgement. So how does this square up with a disciplinary panel who knows the accused member all too well, having strong opinions about that person ,  based on their own observations, past experience and snippets of gossip which have come their way ?  It doesn't . Their ability to remain impartial , and to approach the task with open minds , can be summed up in one word....zero. Bias in these disciplinary scenarios can not be avoided or denied , and so the crucial question becomes  " to what level is it at ? ".  In the cases quoted in the article, the degree of racial prejudice was so extreme , that innocent black people were all found guilty, when facing all white juries . 
Disciplinary panels , like their criminal court counterparts , will often encounter committee members who have initial doubts about an accused's guilt. These " hold outs " are unconvinced at first , having recognising a lack evidence to establish any wrongdoing , or that the case against the accused has no real merit. However,   others who with closed minds and a desire to punish ,  will then set about convincing the waverers to see things their way. The doubters , finding themselves trapped within a culture riddled with prejudice and bias, inevitably decide to toe-the-line. Might is right is it not ?. 
Indeed, in the cases quoted in the article, irrespective of how magnificent the defence has been , the jurors choose to believe the worst , focussing only on those facts which confirmed their initial beliefs,  no matter how flimsy or questionable these facts were. No rational explanation of innocence was ever likely to be acknowledged or accepted. " It was if some contour in their minds prevented them from seeing and perceiving facts as humans otherwise would ". Therefore, whenever a prevailing lynch mob mentality is present ,   the likelihood of a fair trial or disciplinary hearing taking place becomes almost zero. The more an accused is perceived as " bad ", the more likely jurors will hear only what they want to hear , and see only what they want to see. When the blinkers are on they stay on.
Ingrained belief systems , cultural, race or gender bias , will always determine which facts are going to be accepted or ignored ,  and how the accepted facts are going to be interpreted. Bias has a habit of distorting rational thinking, and causing people to act in bad faith. Prejudice distorts one's use and understanding of language , along with one's sense of proportionality and fair play.
I can always recall a murder case where one of the accused yelled out to the other " let him have it ". The jury was quick to agree that the words were an evil command " to shoot the officer using both barrels " as opposed to an alternative , and more innocent interpretation , of "  just hand the shotgun over to the officer  ".
Therefore , in all those cases where intent is not known or cannot be proven , it would be totally wrong to allow bias to provide an answer.