How Criminal Justice Responds To Network Public Opinion

Nowadays, with the rapid development of network technology, the public have expressed their concern regarding such relevant judicial acts as case investigation, judicial adjudication and implementation effects via weibo, blog, and post bar. Along with the increase of the civic awareness, the subject of a conversation which was focused only upon the community matters has been extended to the judicial area. It is both the progress of social democracy and the worry of the democratic society. Is the consensus based upon the internet the hinder of the impartial justice of criminal judicature or the sunlight of supervising the transparency of criminal justice trial? Whether the public’s right of free speech, the press media’s right of supervision have the conflicts with the independent adjudicatory power of the judiciary? The value analysis upon the basis of the above questions will be the theoretical foundation for the criminal justice to response to the network of public opinion. Having analyzed a series of typical cases, it is discovered that in the recent criminal trials, some courts have positively responded to the public by the advanced technology, and they have received the good effects of social trial; however, in some other cases, the parties involved evaded the public concern, which made the public more curious about the truth. With various rumors on the contrary, even the impartial justice would be questioned. Therefore, without question, the criminal justice shall make the active response to the internet consensus. But it depends upon the specific situation. The negative and extreme internet consensus should be evaded in the process of building response mechanism. And accusation, disclosure and such network consensuses with just base shall be the good guidance of response. According to the different major bodies, the targeted response methods should be set up while building the communication bridge between the public and the judicature. By doing so, the bidirectional effects of both the public’s convince of the trial and the impartial justice of trail will be achieved.