Do the Catholic laity bear any responsibiity

Of course I am serious. If you actually read all that I wrote you seem to have not understood what I have been saying. Why do you continue to not understand what I and others have posted about church courts? You keep attempting to make them equivalent to civil courts, when they are not. My guess is that you lack the knowledge that comes either through academic study or actual experience with a church organization. Or perhaps you do understand but are just posting out of a rabid hatred of the Catholic Church so you refuse them any latitude in conducting their internal affairs, and just want to take anything they do that is not to your liking as corruption?  Congratulations, you have brought me to conclude that they are 100% correct in how they are proceeding.

Yes, he was convicted, and probably guilty, but I was not in court and it is possible he didn't get a fair trial in some ways. He isn't going anyway anytime soon so cannot harm anyone whether still a Cardinal or not. Taking their own deliberate time to decide his fate is being prudent. What if they just threw him to the winds and he won an appeal in the civil process?  Would they then not be obligated to restore him to the College of Cardinals?

You seem to be mired in the 12th Century when there was a real debate in England over jurisdiction to try criminal offences by clerics. Henry II and Becket are long gone, and this is no longer a debate.