Law-related Online Public Opinion Judicial Response System Design

As a collection of people’s cognition,attitude,emotion and behavioral tendency to express to the court’s case trial,execution and other work by means of Internet communication,law-related online public opinions forms two different public opinion ecology through interaction among various elements(or links)such as generation,dissemination,consumption and decomposition,namely,the positive ecology of law-related online public opinions and the negative ecology of law-related online public opinions.The judicial organ is in the decomposition(or digestion)of the public opinion ecology and plays a key role in the formation of the two kinds of public opinion ecology.In the positive environment of law-related online public opinions,judicial organs pay more attention to the disclosure and sharing of information in the investigation,trial and execution stages,also pay more attention to the response and reply to social conditions and public opinions.The corresponding public opinions related to law are reflected to the judicial organs through the Internet.The judicial organs also respond to the relevant opinions and suggestions with the help of various platforms and methods,so as to form a healthy interaction between the media,the public and the judicial organ;In the negative environment of law-related online public opinion,due to the "ostrich policy" pursued by judicial organs,they do not make a sound or respond and missed opportunity.By the time they were forced to speak,it was too late to recover the situation.Inaddition,the illegal release,non-standard and unprofessional release of information by judicial organs will also lead to the spread of negative public opinions,and the improper response of public opinions will also lead to secondary public opinions.With the help of the factor analysis method of online public opinion ecology,this paper makes an in-depth and systematic analysis of two typical cases Law-related online public opinion ecology.By summing up the experience and shortcomings of judicial organs’ response in the above two kinds of public opinion ecology,it can be concluded that,on the one hand,the harmony of judicial public relations between judicial organs and the public and the media largely depends on the level of judicial information supply,judicial response and communication.Therefore,it is necessary to build a systematic mechanism for monitoring,researching,judging law-related online public opinion,to improve the judicial response and guidance mechanism to public opinion and the diversified absorption mechanism of the judicial response to public opinion,so as to improve the ability to deal with the public behind the media and we media.As for the media’s positive public opinion and the rational public opinion of the public,it should be more inclusive,timely interactive and properly absorbed;In order to strengthening judicial supply-side reform,modern internet new media technology platform should be used to realize the visualization and fine management of judicial information to balance the supply and demand of judicial information,guide the return of social rationality,and finally realize the benign interaction and balance between public opinion participation,supervision and judicial justice.On the other hand,faced with the situation that the negative Law-related online public opinion is constantly eroding the privacy right of individuals,the public’s right to know and the independent judicial power,and trampling on the legal authority,therefore it’s really necessary to explore a path of judicial regulation.First of all,through the introduction of the "Gag order" system,to change the responsibility for the regulation and prevention in advance,so as to realize the balance of rights.Second,establish the system of "contempt of court" in accordance with China’s national conditions to meet the legal responsibility for violating the "Gag order" system,and make up for the existing "criminal law amendment(ix)" system omission which does not include the influence of public opinion on judicial justice;Finally,considering that "contempt of court" is a regulatory means of criminal liability,it cannot be lightly used for criminal responsibility because it’s still a punishment after the fact,which cannot play a preventive role in advance.Therefore,when the "Gag order" cannot play an effective preventive role,the closed trial system should be used to block the interference of public opinion.