Some years ago, I upset some crypto-Watchtower apologists by stating that the Organization must eventually either abolish the CO arrangement or radically change it because it creates a direct chain of liability by chain of command and makes them a hierarchy (without Catholic level assets or influence to support such a structure).
I would make a similar argument with regard to Judicial Committees. I do not contend that the Watchtower would get rid of these repellent anachronisms simply because they are unethical in form and use but rather that they represent an increasing liability/obstacle to the Organization's survival.
Why?
1) Such committees tend to open up all sorts of legal challenges and dangers. There have been plenty of cases in the last year alone that exposed various elders as having confessed knowledge of crimes - and then relaying that information to HQ, making an even bigger mess. Has someone confessed to fraud? Murder? Child Molestation? AFAIK, courts do not accept elders as having "clerical privilege" since such properly involves only two people, not committees.
At this point, some will say, "they fix the problem by reporting these crimes to the police". Maybe so - but one must take into account the tendency of elders to be genially corrupt and 'write off" acts of sexual assault as just "horseing around" ( Yes, they will, I know about this personally!) which brings me to point two -
2) When do such committees become legally unmanageable? And why has the Society ordered elders, in the past, specifically NOT to refer or attribute local decisions to Bethel/The Legal Staff/The Society? How long can they go on using uneducated window washers as unpaid remote employees and expect them to manage difficult questions by telephone calls to HQ? When does this arrangement become absurd? Are elders still expected to be stalkers in suspected adultery cases? Will they risk "hate speech" infractions by expelling gays? ( who have monitored convention talks in the past for this purpose).
3) Yes, the Society is strongly protected by the 1st Amendment in the US but that doesn't apply to all nations and legal systems.
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/excom5.html
With US hegemony shrinking, I see little reason for optimism about religious "rights" and privileges across the globe - and that may spell court interference in excommunication cases and more in the future.
4) An additional factor here concerns the real world of extra-judical influences and reactions especially in cases involving children. This is particularly the case as the "seared consciences" of the Governing Body approve of baptisms of children (God! As young as 6 ?). Their sheer greediness for control could cause all sorts of issues external to the actual "Kangaroo Courts" that they have created -such as in Custody Hearings or in the private decisions of government officials who could be ex-Witnesses themselves or have relatives/ friends as such.
As with people who obviously avoid footpaths that go past JW.Org displays, what happens when there are plenty of ex-JW's all over general society?
If they insist on keeping this 19th century antique alive, I can imagine that they might simply rely on public acts and go no further - such as a criminal conviction or adulterous marriage that gets a Witness automatically expelled.
In summary, I think this arrangement is likely to become ever more burdensome and an "albatross around their necks" with every passing year. In light of current changes, is that really what they want?
metatron