The Experience Question
When we built OCC, we made a deliberate choice: our investigators would be retired judges, prosecutors, and attorneys with decades of professional experience. Some people ask why we didn’t hire younger, less expensive investigators.
The answer is simple: experience matters in investigation. And some types of experience matter more than others.
This essay explains why we value experience so highly and why retired legal professionals make better investigators.
What Retired Professionals Bring
Deep Knowledge of Legal Systems
Judges who spent years on the bench understand:
- How courts work
- How cases flow through the system
- How decisions are made
- Why procedures exist
- What violations look like in practice
- How institutions under pressure might fail
This knowledge can’t be taught in training. It comes from years in the system.
Example: A retired judge reviewing detention records immediately recognizes when due process procedures aren’t being followed. They’ve seen thousands of cases and know what proper procedure looks like.
Understanding of Investigative Standards
Prosecutors who spent careers investigating crimes understand:
- How to gather evidence properly
- How to interview witnesses
- How to evaluate credibility
- What makes evidence legally sufficient
- How to avoid bias in investigation
- How to maintain chain of custody
This knowledge ensures our investigations are legally defensible.
Example: A retired prosecutor reviews investigative reports and immediately identifies gaps in the evidence. They know what’s missing and how to get it.
Institutional Experience
Attorneys who spent careers in government or court systems understand:
- How institutions function
- Where problems typically occur
- How to navigate institutional politics
- What systemic failures look like
- How to communicate with institutional leadership
- What motivates institutional change
This experience allows us to ask better questions during investigation.
Example: A retired public defender reviewing detention conditions immediately recognizes problems that less experienced investigators might miss.
Credibility with Institutions
When a retired judge arrives to investigate, institutional leadership takes it seriously. They understand that:
- This person has been where you are
- This person understands the pressures you face
- This person isn’t ideologically driven
- This person will be fair
- This person’s findings will be credible
Result: Investigations are more cooperative and productive.
What Experience Prevents
Inexperienced investigators make characteristic mistakes. Experienced investigators avoid them.
Mistake 1: Bias from Ideology Rather Than Evidence
Inexperienced investigators sometimes come to investigation with predetermined conclusions. They’re investigating because they believe the institution is bad, and they’ll prove it.
Experienced investigators come to investigation asking what the evidence shows. They follow the evidence, not ideology.
Why it matters: Ideologically-driven investigations reach predetermined conclusions. Evidence-based investigations find truth.
Mistake 2: Missing What’s Obvious to Experts
Inexperienced investigators might miss violations that are obvious to people who’ve worked in the system. They ask wrong questions. They don’t recognize problems when they see them.
Example: An inexperienced investigator might not recognize that detention procedures violate due process because they don’t know what proper procedure looks like. A retired judge immediately sees the violation.
Experienced investigators recognize problems because they’ve seen them before. They ask better questions because they know what matters.
Mistake 3: Legal Errors That Undermine Findings
Inexperienced investigators might collect evidence improperly, conduct interviews inadequately, or make legal conclusions that don’t hold up.
Result: Findings can be challenged successfully. Legal errors create doubt about conclusions.
Experienced investigators conduct investigation properly from the start. Their findings withstand legal challenge.
Mistake 4: Inadequate Understanding of Context
Inexperienced investigators might not understand the pressures institutions face or the reasons for institutional decisions.
Result: Recommendations are unrealistic or miss systemic issues.
Experienced investigators understand institutional context. They make recommendations that institutions can actually implement.
Mistake 5: Offending Institutions Unnecessarily
Inexperienced investigators sometimes conduct themselves in ways that alienate institutional leadership, making cooperation harder.
Result: Investigations become adversarial and less productive.
Experienced investigators understand how to maintain professionalism and respect while still being thorough. They treat institutions fairly.
The Specific Advantages by Role
Retired Judges
Retired judges bring:
Deep knowledge of law
- They’ve interpreted law for years
- They understand legal nuance
- They know what constitutes legal violation
- Their legal reasoning is sound
Understanding of court operations
- They’ve seen how courts work
- They understand pressure judges face
- They know what resources courts need
- They can assess whether courts are functioning
Credibility
- Institutions respect judges
- Judges are seen as fair and neutral
- Judges have no axe to grind
- Their findings carry weight
Ability to work with other judges
- They speak the language of the judiciary
- They understand judicial culture
- Other judges listen to them
- They can communicate judicial standards
Retired Prosecutors
Retired prosecutors bring:
Understanding of investigation
- They’ve investigated thousands of cases
- They know what evidence is needed
- They understand interviewing and evidence collection
- They know what makes investigation credible
Understanding of criminal procedure
- They know what procedures are required
- They understand rights and protections
- They know what violations look like
- They’ve prosecuted rights violations
Judgment about credibility
- They’ve evaluated thousands of witnesses
- They can distinguish truth from fabrication
- They understand what people are hiding
- They’re expert at reading people
Understanding of institutional pressure
- They’ve worked in institutions
- They understand budgets and resources
- They understand competing pressures
- They can assess institutional reasonableness
Retired Defense Attorneys
Retired defense attorneys bring:
Understanding of client rights
- They’ve spent careers protecting rights
- They know what violations look like
- They understand detainee/defendant perspective
- They’re sensitive to power imbalances
Understanding of institutional overreach
- They’ve seen what institutions do wrong
- They know how institutions cut corners
- They understand institutional bias
- They’re skeptical of official explanations
Understanding of vulnerable populations
- They’ve represented disadvantaged people
- They understand systemic inequities
- They know how vulnerable people are treated
- They’re advocates for fairness
The Value of Age and Perspective
We also value age and perspective for investigation.
Historical Perspective
Investigators who’ve worked in the system for decades have perspective:
- They’ve seen institutions through many cycles
- They’ve seen what changes and what doesn’t
- They’ve seen reform efforts work and fail
- They understand institutional inertia
- They know what’s realistic
Result: Our recommendations are based on decades of seeing what works.
Stability and Gravitas
Retired professionals aren’t investigating for a paycheck or career advancement. They’re investigating because:
- They care about justice
- They understand importance of oversight
- They want to give back
- They care about vulnerable people
- They’ve already succeeded in their careers
Result: Their conclusions aren’t influenced by career concerns. They tell truth.
Ability to Say “No”
Retired professionals can tell us if an investigation is unwarranted. They can say:
- “This allegation isn’t credible”
- “The evidence doesn’t support this conclusion”
- “This institution is doing fine”
- “This recommendation isn’t realistic”
They don’t need our approval to continue their careers. They can tell us hard truths.
Resistance to Bias
Retired professionals have worked long enough to:
- Understand their own biases
- Work past initial impressions
- Follow evidence even when uncomfortable
- Change their minds based on facts
- Resist group pressure
- Think independently
What This Means for Quality
The experience of our investigators means:
Investigations Are Thorough
Experienced investigators don’t miss things. They’ve seen enough to know what to look for.
Findings Are Accurate
Experienced investigators reach accurate conclusions. They’ve learned how to evaluate evidence correctly.
Recommendations Are Realistic
Experienced investigators make recommendations that work. They understand what institutions can actually do.
Institutions Cooperate
Experienced investigators command respect. Institutions cooperate more fully, making investigation more productive.
Legal Credibility
Experienced investigators conduct investigation properly. Our findings withstand legal challenge.
Findings Create Change
Because our findings are credible and recommendations are realistic, institutions actually change. Change happens because people believe findings and can implement recommendations.
The Cost of Experience
This approach has costs.
Financial Cost
Experienced investigators are more expensive than junior investigators. Retired professionals have resources and don’t work cheap. We pay premium rates.
We consider this a worthwhile investment. Better investigation is worth the cost.
Limited Availability
There’s a limited pool of experienced legal professionals willing to serve in this capacity. Not everyone we’d like to recruit says yes.
But we’re selective. We want people who will do excellent work.
Managing Overconfidence
Long experience sometimes comes with overconfidence. Experienced people sometimes think they don’t need to verify assumptions.
Our multi-layer review process addresses this. We balance experience with verification.
Building the Commission
When we select commissioners, we look for:
Essential qualifications:
- Decades of relevant experience
- Successful career track record
- Deep knowledge of legal systems
- Understanding of institutional operations
- Ethical reputation
- Commitment to justice
Preferred qualifications:
- Direct experience in investigation
- Experience with vulnerable populations
- Experience in the relevant area (courts, detention, etc.)
- Teaching or writing experience
- Leadership experience
- Commitment to civil rights
Personal qualities:
- Intellectual humility (willingness to learn)
- Fairness and objectivity
- Ability to work with others
- Ability to write and communicate clearly
- Commitment to excellence
- Integrity
We deliberately seek diversity:
- Geographic diversity
- Professional diversity (judges, prosecutors, defenders)
- Gender and racial diversity
- Generational diversity (balancing very experienced with somewhat less experienced)
The Commission as Model
Our commission model has advantages beyond investigation quality.
Institutional Credibility
When institutions see that their investigations are conducted by retired judges and prosecutors, they respect the process. Credibility builds cooperation.
Public Confidence
The public has confidence that our investigations are thorough and fair. Retired professionals command respect.
Legal Defensibility
Courts recognize retired legal professionals. Our findings are taken seriously in litigation.
Succession Planning
Retired professionals can mentor younger people, building institutional knowledge for the future.
Not Perfect, But Better
We’re not claiming that experience guarantees perfect investigation. Experienced people can still make mistakes.
But statistically:
- Experienced investigators make fewer mistakes
- Experienced investigators catch mistakes others miss
- Experienced investigators reach better conclusions
- Experienced investigators make more realistic recommendations
The difference matters.
For Institutions
If your institution is investigated by OCC, understand:
- You’re being investigated by people who’ve been where you are
- These investigators understand your pressures
- They will be fair
- They will be thorough
- Their conclusions will be credible
- Their recommendations will be realistic
The experience of our investigators is your assurance of quality.
For the Future
As we grow OCC, we remain committed to this model: experienced professionals conducting investigations with rigor and fairness.
Experience can’t be hurried. But good investigation can’t be rushed either.
Our investigators bring decades of learning. That investment in experience translates to better oversight, fairer investigation, and more credible findings.
That’s worth every penny.