The Conflict And Solution Of Network Public Opinion And Judicial Trial

Nowadays,the "Two Micro-Ends" represented by Weibo,WeChat and the client have already surpassed the single social application positioning category,and become an important platform for carrying various events,such as fermentation,exchange of ideas,and confrontation of ideas.Massive information gathers here.Different opinions compete with each other,and the parties concerned either reach a compromise,or a tit-for-tat,or a neutral "eat melon",forming a complex network environment,and there have been a series of cases in which online public opinion and judicial trials collide,and there is a contradiction between the two.It has become increasingly prominent and has become a topic of great concern to the whole society.In 2017,the “YuHuan case” quickly detonated the network public opinion field.The reason why the netizens can attract strong attention is that the media used the Spring and Autumn style to intercept some factual fragments to set the issue for the public.The case's own “insulting mother” and “revenge for the mother” "The two plots touched the bottom line of the people's ethics,and the improper response of the judiciary exacerbated the emotional rebound of online public opinion." By combing the trend of the "YuHuan case" network public opinion,it can be seen that in the enthusiasm of the netizens for the "YuHuan case",the network public opinion has gradually exceeded the scope of public opinion supervision,showing the tendency of public opinion trials,for judicial trials.A great deal of intervention has occurred,and it is difficult to judge it with the content stipulated by law,which has affected the authority of the judicial department and reduced the people's trust in relevant departments.The root cause lies in the difference in the understanding of justice between the people and the judicial judges.The network public opinion pays more attention to substantive justice,and the judicial trial needs to take into account procedural justice.The direct reason is that online public opinion is more emotional.Internet users are more likely to interpret roles when interpreting cases,focusing on moral judgments,while judicial activities are more rational.They must adhere to legal facts and objectively and neutrally judge.From the perspective of the external environment,cyberspace is more free and open.Internet users can express their opinions on the case freely,and the professional environment of the judiciary is more closed.Due to the principle of “judges are not spoken”,judicial personnel must remain silent on related topics.To solve the conflict between network public opinion and judicial trial,we should start from the two perspectives of network public opinion and judicial trial,and propose ways to deal with it separately.From the perspective of public opinion: we must build a cyberspace that is clear and clear,strengthen content production and construction,attach importance to the official regulation and control scale of public opinion;cultivate opinion leaders,enhance guidance and enable public opinion to develop in a rational and healthy direction;netizens themselves must grasp freedom of speech.Limit,speak prudently,think rationally.From the perspective of justice: we must pay attention to the supervision role of public opinion,use the "Internet +" new mode of communication to do a good job of judicial openness,respond to public opinion expectations in a timely manner;tolerate reasonable public opinion,and use the law to judge the judgment,so that the results of the referee can be recognized by the public;Good public opinion monitoring and early warning,combined with management,building a legal public opinion atmosphere,and punishing cyber violations.In this way,starting from both sides can make the network public opinion and the judicial trial reach a benign interaction.