刑事司法如何回应网络舆论
发布时间：2019-06-28 15:02
【摘要】：网络科技如此迅猛发展的今天,人们不断通过微博、博客、贴吧等途径表达着对案件调查、司法审判、执行效果等有关司法活动的关注,伴随公民意识的增强,以往只局限于社区领域的谈资已经拓展到了司法领域,是社会民主的进步,也是民主社会的忧患。基于网络形成的网络舆论是阻却刑事司法公正审判的障碍,还是监督刑事司法透明审判的阳光,公民的言论自由权、新闻媒体的监督权与司法独立审判权是否冲突?基于以上疑问所产生的价值分析,将是刑事司法回应网络舆论的理论基础。通过对一系列典型案例的分析,可以发现近期刑事审判中,有些法院通过先进科技积极回应公众,收到了很好的审判社会效果；而有些案例因为当事人的避之不及,对于公众关注的躲闪,却递增了公众对于真相的好奇,反而造成谣言四起,导致即便公正审判也会受到质疑。所以,刑事司法应当积极回应网络舆论毋庸置疑,只是应当区别对待,负面、偏激的网络舆论将是构建回应过程中所应当规避的,而检举、揭发没有理据的网络舆论则是回应方式提升的有利向导。搭建公众与司法的沟通桥梁应当根据主体的不同,针对性地完善回应方式,如此,才能收到公众信服审判、审判公正裁决的双向效果。
[Abstract]:Today, with the rapid development of network science and technology, people continue to express their attention to judicial activities such as case investigation, judicial trial, execution effect and so on through Weibo, blog, post bar and so on. With the enhancement of civic awareness, the discussion limited to the community field has been extended to the judicial field, which is not only the progress of social democracy, but also the worry of democratic society. The network public opinion based on the network is the obstacle to the fair trial of criminal justice, or is it the sunshine of supervising the transparent trial of criminal justice, the right of citizens to freedom of expression, the supervision power of news media and the right of judicial independence? Based on the value analysis of the above questions, it will be the theoretical basis for criminal justice to respond to network public opinion. Through the analysis of a series of typical cases, it can be found that in the recent criminal trial, some courts responded positively to the public through advanced technology and received good social effects of the trial, while some cases increased the public's curiosity about the truth because of the shortcomings of the parties, but increased the public's curiosity about the truth, resulting in rumors that even a fair trial would be questioned. Therefore, there is no doubt that the criminal justice should respond positively to the network public opinion, but it should be treated differently. The negative and extreme network public opinion will be circumvented in the process of constructing the response, while reporting that the unjustified network public opinion is a favorable guide to the promotion of the response mode. To build the communication bridge between the public and the judiciary, we should improve the response mode according to the different subjects, so as to receive the two-way effect of the public convincing trial and the fair decision of the trial.
【学位授予单位】：昆明理工大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2;G206
本文编号：2507387
[Abstract]:Today, with the rapid development of network science and technology, people continue to express their attention to judicial activities such as case investigation, judicial trial, execution effect and so on through Weibo, blog, post bar and so on. With the enhancement of civic awareness, the discussion limited to the community field has been extended to the judicial field, which is not only the progress of social democracy, but also the worry of democratic society. The network public opinion based on the network is the obstacle to the fair trial of criminal justice, or is it the sunshine of supervising the transparent trial of criminal justice, the right of citizens to freedom of expression, the supervision power of news media and the right of judicial independence? Based on the value analysis of the above questions, it will be the theoretical basis for criminal justice to respond to network public opinion. Through the analysis of a series of typical cases, it can be found that in the recent criminal trial, some courts responded positively to the public through advanced technology and received good social effects of the trial, while some cases increased the public's curiosity about the truth because of the shortcomings of the parties, but increased the public's curiosity about the truth, resulting in rumors that even a fair trial would be questioned. Therefore, there is no doubt that the criminal justice should respond positively to the network public opinion, but it should be treated differently. The negative and extreme network public opinion will be circumvented in the process of constructing the response, while reporting that the unjustified network public opinion is a favorable guide to the promotion of the response mode. To build the communication bridge between the public and the judiciary, we should improve the response mode according to the different subjects, so as to receive the two-way effect of the public convincing trial and the fair decision of the trial.
【学位授予单位】：昆明理工大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2;G206
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 蒋鹏飞;刘少军;;我国人民陪审员产生程序之弊及其校正——从司法民主的角度进行分析[J];安徽大学法律评论;2009年02期
2 易延友;陪审团移植的成败及其启示——以法国为考察重心[J];比较法研究;2005年01期
3 梁燕;;浅议媒体的舆论导向对司法审判的影响——从药家鑫案到李昌奎案媒体舆论导向看司法审判的独立[J];今传媒;2011年11期
4 夏菁;;完善陪审制度,实现司法民主[J];法学家;2005年04期
5 孟勤国;判决是法官良知与能力的镜子[J];法学评论;2000年05期
6 陈亦欣;;浅析刑事审判中应坚持情理法的统一为审判依据[J];法制与经济(中旬);2012年02期
7 杜光平;蒋静;;论网络舆论对司法审判监督的正当性[J];法制与社会;2009年35期
8 郜占川;;民意对刑事司法的影响考量——制度层面的优化与突破[J];甘肃社会科学;2011年06期
9 郜占川;;民意对刑事司法的影响考量——“能与不能”、“当或不当”之论争[J];甘肃政法学院学报;2011年04期
10 周国兴;;审判如何回应民意——基于卢埃林情景感理论的考察[J];法商研究;2013年03期
，本文编号：2507387
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/susongfa/2507387.html
