In the age of social media, the distinction between fact and opinion has become increasingly clouded by relative obscurity, leading to a phenomenon known as “trial by social media”. This has had an intense impact on the fairness of the legal system. The rise of social media has made it difficult to separate facts from opinions, leading to a lack of objectivity in the public’s understanding of legal procedures and practices. In this article, we will be considering the concept of SOCIAL MEDIA AND JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY.
Everybody believes that social media has taken jurisdiction over so many things in our lives. Lots of people depend on social media to get daily information and updates on trends and happenings around them, but the fact still remains that every presentation of fact or opinion on social media no matter the sentiments or popularity attached to it cannot always be the truth.
Most people take social media as a gratifying platform where their views whether true or false can be seen and heard by everyone. Truthfully, most people have a strong desire for attention (to be seen and heard) and social media is one of the platforms that can easily gratify these desires. A clear example of the dangers of misinformation can be seen in the case of “Brock Turner”. The Brock Turner case was a highly controversial one in which a Stanford University student, Brock Turner, was accused of raping an unconscious woman outside of a fraternity party.
The Brock Turner case refers to a highly publicized sexual assault case in the United States that received widespread attention and sparked intense debate about issues related to sexual assault, privilege, and sentencing. This case can be used in considering the concept of SOCIAL MEDIA AND JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY.
In January 2015, Brock Turner, a former Stanford University student and swimmer, was arrested and charged with sexually assaulting an unconscious woman near a fraternity house on the Stanford campus. Turner was found guilty on three felony counts: assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated/unconscious person, sexual penetration of an intoxicated person, and sexual penetration of an unconscious person. The victim’s statement during the trial gained significant attention for its powerful portrayal of the impact of sexual assault.
The case generated controversy on social media when Turner was sentenced to six months in county jail and three years of probation. The leniency of the sentence sparked public outrage and debates about the criminal justice system’s handling of sexual assault cases, as well as the role of privilege and race in sentencing.
Many people felt that Turner’s sentence was far too light given the severity of the crime. In this case, social media was used to spread misinformation and influence public opinions about the trial and the sentencing. This impacted the legal process, as it created a lot of pressure on the judge and the legal system. The judge’s decision was heavily influenced by the public outrage on social media, which raises questions about the impartiality of the legal system. Ultimately, the Brock Turner case highlights some of the challenges of living in a world where social media plays such a large role in our lives. It’s important to consider the impact that social media can have on the legal system and how it can influence public opinion and even affect the outcome of a case.
Another challenge of social media in the courtroom can be seen in jurisdictions like the United States of America where the Jury System is in play. There is the potential for jury bias and prejudice. Social media can bias jurors by exposing them to information that is not presented in court, which can influence their subconscious, philosophies and decision-making process. According to research, up to 80% of jurors admitted to using the Internet to search for information about a case before the trial even began.
This makes them prone to getting wrong information and evidence, which can make their decisions be influenced by public opinion on social media. Internet searches can expose jurors to information that is not admissible in court, such as prior arrests or alleged crimes that have not been proven in court. This can cause jurors to form preconceived notions about the defendant, which can affect their judgment.
Research has shown that reading information on social media can influence people’s opinions more than reading the same information from traditional media sources. This shows how the medium of communication can affect people’s perceptions of the information. Unlike traditional media sources, social media allows users to interact with and share content, which can create an echo chamber effect (a situation in which people are exposed to information, ideas, and opinions that align with their existing beliefs, and they are insulated from opposing viewpoints). Thus, social media can make people see information that only confirms their existing beliefs. This can lead to confirmation bias and make it difficult for people to be objective. When jurors go into a trial with confirmation bias, they may be more likely to favor the side that confirms their existing beliefs, even if the evidence does not support their position. This can affect the fairness of the trial and the verdict. The use of social media by jurors can introduce bias into the legal system, affecting the fairness of the trial and potentially leading to unjust verdicts.
However, some measures should be taken to reduce the impact of social media on the judicial system. One of which is to implement guidelines that limit the use of social media during trials. These guidelines could include prohibiting jurors from using social media during the trial and requiring them to refrain from discussing the case with others until the trial is over.
This would help to ensure that jurors make their decisions based solely on the evidence presented in court. Another way to reduce the impact of social media on the legal system is to educate jurors about the dangers of confirmation bias and the importance of impartiality. “The law is no respecter of persons” and the “last hope of the common man”, therefore, partiality shouldn’t be attributed to the court.
In considering the concept of social media and judicial transparency, it is vital to understand that jurors could be educated about the psychology of confirmation bias, and how it can lead them to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs while ignoring information that contradicts them. This knowledge could help jurors to recognize and avoid confirmation bias, making them more impartial. It is also important to hold social media companies accountable for spreading misinformation, by implementing policies that promote the sharing of accurate information and the removal of false or misleading content. By implementing these steps, we can help to ensure that social media does not interfere with the fairness of the legal system and that everyone has access to accurate information.
SEE ALSO: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS IN FRACTIONAL REAL ESTATE OWNERSHIP IN NIGERIA
Furthermore, social media has transformed the way we communicate and share information, which has both positive and negative implications for the legal system. In order to ensure that everyone has access to fair and impartial justice, it is important for people to understand the ways in which social media can impact the judicial process. Social media has an impact on privacy and confidentiality in the courtroom. One way social media can have an impact on privacy and confidentiality is by making it more difficult to keep information private during a trial. For example, jurors may post about a case on social media before it is resolved, which could compromise the privacy of the people involved. Some prominent people in society may have a dispute which ends up at the law court, most of them send a representative whenever the matter is being heard because they don’t want people to know that they are involved in the matter or they don’t want to be seen.
Social media can make an impact on public trust in the legal system and thus affect judicial transparency. It can increase public cynicism about the legal system. For example, when people see biased or unverified information about a case on social media, it can make them distrust the judicial process and the people involved in it. A case widely known may be going, everyone will say whatever they feel or think to be true forgetting that there is a process in the court for everything. Some people may use social media to spread misinformation or manipulate public opinion about a case. If it doesn’t go as expected, it will bring distrust in the judicial system. Another way that social media can impact public trust in the legal system is by amplifying the voices of people who are not involved in the judicial process. If a piece of information is spread regarding a case, the information, the source of the information should be found to ascertain if it’s coming from the right source, if not, the writer and those involved in bringing up such information should be sanctioned for libel, by doing this, most people will learn from experience and won’t try to repeat such thing for fear of being caught.
In conclusion, social media and judicial transparency have had a profound impact on the legal system, offering both advantages and challenges. It has the potential to enhance judicial transparency, promote public understanding, and facilitate information sharing, but it also brings risks related to misinformation, privacy, bias, and ethical concerns. As social media continues to evolve, courts and legal professionals will need to adapt and establish guidelines to strike a balance between openness and safeguarding the integrity of the justice system.