A Probe Into Internets’ Influence On The Social Focused Crimimal Cases

With the rapid development of internet technology, public opinions disseminate on the internet are becoming an nonnegligible factor that supervises hot criminal cases in society. Some cases, after over exposure on internet, become hot case that arouse myriads of debates and discussions from the netizens. Internet serve as an outstanding discourse system through which citizens could make their own voice heard and opinions seen to the public. Internet furthers China’s judical construction by offering citizens a platform through which they could participate in the social cases and supervises the whole judical process. However, in most cases, citizens are inclined to remark on the base of one-sided, subjective and sentimental reports instead of the comprehensive, and objective ones. Under the instigating remarks of the “VIPS” on inernet(influntial individuals on internet, they are often some public characters), the citizens tend to support a certain part, often the park weaker in power or lower in social status. This would do harm to the judical constructions and affect the measurement of penalty, and thus violate the essence of public opinions and hinder the judical justice. “Tang Hui case” in Hunan had been public concern for 8 years, and the 8 years witnessed the great influence of internet on hot criminal cases. Internet could form public press on judical authorities, it could bring advantages and disadvantages to jusical authorities, in most cases, disadvantages overweigh advantages.This thesis, by explaning the “Tang Hui Case”, explors the negetative effect of public opinions on internet. The thesis reveals how public opinions manipulate the conviction. By in-depth studies on why internet affects the conviction and how it affects the conviction, the thesis raises the solution for the contradiction between internet opinions and convictions. Internet opinions do harm to the conviction of the criminal cases because the information citizens receive are often incomprehensive, false, and instigating. What is more, such information are subjective, and they might misguide the citizens. Lastly, netizens’ sentimental remarks might be accumulated and become public opinions, and thus bring pressure to the judical authorities. Under such circumstance, convicting process would easily be interrupted. Hence, in order to solve the problem, dual measures should be taken to administrate both the internet and the judical system. Firstly, media should report objectively, comprehensively, and neutrally, the media should report objectively, and neturally;the media should not report ahead of the judical process and should not measures to improve the netizens’ quality, to improve their ability for judging rationally. Furthermore, measures should be taken to systematize the convicting process and inform the process to the public. Work should be done to make the sentence more persuasive, to supervise the opinions and influential remarks on the internet, and to improve the quality and moral standard of the judical staff. By tolerant and rational administration on internet as well as judical system, the problem between internet opinions and conviction could be eased. Only by doing this could the netizens do their bit in supervising the judical cases actively.