On The Countermeasures Of Judicature To Media's Intervention

The media's intervention to judicature has shown both constitutionality and inevitability and the high-tech of Internet is adding some new characteristics to the strained relations. Now the informative communication is more open and easy, the accumulation and release of different emotions, the issue and diffusion of different voices and especially the depth report and supervision of mass media have made it harder for judicature to balance the interests of all parties. So judicial justice has become the focus of attention of all sectors of society and the focus of continuous fermentation. Public opinion and judicature promote each other and conflict each other. On the one hand, the impartiality and integrity problems of judicature has not been fundamentally solved, favoritism and abuse of the phenomenon still exists, the external supervision of public opinion has provided a powerful traction for the openness and fairness of the case processing. On the other hand, public opinion propagation and case reports prejudge the impending cases and some media use titles which is eye-catching and full of curious color, descriptions full of literary flavor, narrations filled with imagination, resulting in the neglect of public reason and objective judgment and the collective unconscious emotional catharsis. During the transitional period of China, both the official and the folks' support may increase the supervision and restriction of judicial power and tend to be overcorrected, however, the extreme, ruthless and tyrannical malicious crowd will increase the disturbing factors both online and offline, so that the public in the distorted "Pseudo Environment" will have more dissatisfaction to the judicial activities and even the whole society, leading to more intensified social contradictions. And if the judicature is overprotected from the public opinion, we will lose the mirror and sunlight, which also doesn't agree with the trend of judicial democracy. In the background of lack of judicial credibility and loss of media function, the intervention is exhibiting dual value which is both contradictory and merged. Be prudent and solve the media-judicature conflict properly with critical and objective attitude is not only the foundation of viewing China's judicial environment during the transitional period, but also beneficial to explore the judicial reaction.This paper is divided into four parts besides preface and conclusion, containing more than 40000 words.Chapter 2 is the theoretical basis and mechanism of public opinion's intervention towards justice. Firstly this part demonstrates the constitutionality and necessity of the intervention, then the analysis of intervention is illustrated from 3 aspects: the generation and propagation of network, the evolution of the individual and group psychology in the expression of network public opinion and the background of the invention.Chapter 3 is the value criticism of the intervention. The positive value is summed up to 3 points: promoting the construction of legislation and the perfection of the system; speeding up the construction of judicial and improving the public credibility of the judiciary; enhancing public awareness of the law and promoting the benign interaction of judicial and public opinion. Followed by the negative value, also summed up to 3 points: public opinion diversity; obstruction of justice; irrational opinion exacerbates social contradictions.Chapter 4 is stones from other hills and focuses on the introduction of the experience in dealing with the relationship between judicature and public opinion of both the Anglo American law system and continental law system. In the two modes of regulation in Anglo American legal system, the article lists the model of Britain in which the legal restrictions on the media and the speech-protecting model of United States. After that, the article also enumerates the model of German, France, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland.Chapter 5 is China's countermeasures to the intervention. The paper holds the point of view that solving related problems with a global vision and China's attitude and borrowing stones from other hills as well as using China's method. The two paths-- the agenda setting and media regulation-- are given. In the agenda setting part, the article details the positive agenda setting-- the use of the new media and the press spokesman and the negative agenda setting-- the judge's speech borders. In the media regulation part, the article focuses on three aspects: participating in the media industry to create code of practice; the prevention of media infringement and crime; afterwards relief methods of media infringement and crime.