I'm not and never have been, etc.
I was not even aware JCs existed until a couple of months ago - but now I understand a lot more from the postings I have read (and I find some them tragic).
Two thoughts struck me as an outsider.
The first is to agree with the advice/suggestions given by many posters that submission to the JC process is a voluntary thing. In the real world any court or tribunal can only act or consider issues if it has 'competent jurisdiction', laid down by law. A JC only has 'competent jurisdiction' over a JW if the JW consents to that jurisdiction. A simplistic view, I know, and I (now) understand the personal and familial consequences and sanctions that can be brought to bear on the JW. I don't minimise these and I appreciate that never have suffered them I can only 'understand' them in theory.
My second thought is this. The JWs are a very rule-led organisation and it seems to me that WTBTS has tried to cover every eventuality and lay down directions for it in their various manuals, etc. (Strikes me as an effort to gain complete control and eliminate any independence or avenue for personal conscience led decisions). Given that that's the case, then elders conducting a JC are theoretically strictly bound by the rules and procedures. If they fail to adhere to WTBTS rules, they are themselves liable to be reported to a 'superior' authority and to be sanctioned for failing to follow the rules.
BUT - for the JC members to be investigated/disciplined, there would have to be (by their own rules) two witnesses as to their conduct. The 'victim/defendant' JW would be one, but who would be the other? Would it be possible for the 'victim/defendant' to insist on having a 'friend' present so that if he/needed to initiate action against the JC he/she would have the requisite second witness?
Just a thought.