Is an AK (assault rifle) necessary or not in principle? (poll)

Question: Is an Appeals Committee (AK) needed? Is a court needed?
.......
It's just that a judge's job is to be criticized.

The difference between a football referee on the field and a court is that the referee has almost no time to make decisions – it must be instantaneous. In courts, the main criterion is the accuracy of the decision, which is why they hold sessions: ideally, refereeing errors during sessions should be completely eliminated.
By the way, football also has an Appeals Committee that deals with exceptional cases, much like cassation appeals in court (i.e., the possibility of errors and the ability to correct them later are built into the systems).
In our case, the AK is both the only and the highest instance.
This necessitates high standards of responsibility and maturity from the members of the AK.
However, in cases that are truly exceptional, it might be worth considering a vote or referendum among the AK members – they didn't even hesitate to create this topic.
Discussion: The public hearings (which, as practice has shown, deputies from the outside world usually ignore and still push their own agenda) demonstrated its complete inadequacy.

*) But the Machiavellian framing of the question – is an AK needed or not? – still deserves attention.
In my opinion, the answer is clear.
However, at the right moment, no one bothered to put the notorious, glaring, and pressing case to a vote, which had become tiresome and caused a lot of trouble. Because the result would have been far from unambiguous, or even completely different from the decision that was made... I'm starting to doubt whether it was a mistake and leaning towards the idea that it was a deliberate removal...