Public Opinion: Social Media – A Popular Forum
Mainstream media wields tremendous influence on the public. News media, newspapers, television, radio, and even social media do not only spread information but also help establish the topics and stories people will discuss. Numerous crimes receive broad coverage by the media, presenting a challenge for defendants, prosecutors, and defence attorneys. Judges and juries are expected to practice impartiality when making decisions about a case despite the media coverage they might have come across before the trial (Conte and Burchill 2016). Public opinion also has the tendency of influencing criminal proceedings. As people follow certain criminal case proceedings, they are bound to give their personal views about it. An inclination towards a certain view by a significant proportion of a community may, in turn, influence how the case is handled or even decided (Hood and Seemungal 201, 818-838). This paper demonstrates that public opinions and mainstream media, and social media perceptions negatively impact criminal proceedings.
Impact of public opinions on criminal proceedings
Like politics, economics, or religion, crime is a habitual subject of public opinion. Journalists and commentators normally comment on the public mood when it comes to matters like criminal trials. Trinidadians do not shy away from providing their opinions about issues that relate to crime. Being a democratic society, Trinidad and Tobago grant a pivotal role in public opinion in many domains of life (crime included), and the thought of only allowing “experts” to give their views is repugnant to many citizens (Kerrigan 2021, 131).
The public usually gives their opinion about a case as they follow the proceedings on mainstream media. There are even instances where the news media seeks to influence public support for one side or another in a court case. This can result in people outside the justice system (that is, people other than the jury or judge) taking action for or against a party involved in a case. For example, the reputation of a party may be largely destroyed even if they win the case. High-profile cases even have vital implications for balancing the public’s right to examine the judicial process and the participants’ right to a fair trial. A politically motivated prosecutor might convict a defendant based on public opinion, thus denying the accused the right to a fair trial (Voigt 2021). On the other hand, in an attempt to help their clients win, defence attorneys may seek to generate public sympathy for the defendant to sway the case. Therefore, despite the evidence that proves the guilt of the accused, the public’s call to find the offender innocent may influence the judge’s or jury’s verdict. As a result, the course of justice is perverted.
Public opinion can affect court decision-making. In particular, public punitiveness has the tendency of impacting the decision of many various court actors in criminal cases. For instance, in areas where the justices of the Supreme Court are chosen by ballot, higher support levels for capital punishment decreases the willingness of justices to overturn death sentences, both directly (regulating for case features and dogma of justices) and indirectly (via court dogmatic composition), (Petree 2018, 155). This means that justices respond to the opinions of the public due to lucid expectation and electoral turnover. In this regard, the opinion of the public could mean the distinction between life and death. Sentences for drug possession also tend to be responsive to the public’s preferences about drug penalties, as determined by ballot votes on an initiative of drug policy (Garzón and Rueda 2020). Utilizing the same measures of policy inclinations, more research has indicated that trial judges and prosecutors also tend to rely on public opinion to inform them how to handle drug cases (Altamirano, Berens, and Ley 2020, 389-422). Therefore, if the public prefers dismissals for such cases, they will probably dismiss the case; on the other hand, if the public prefers punishment for the perpetrators, the judges will likely deliver sentences to punish the offenders.
Public opinion also has the ability to affect the way jurors will vote regarding a case. Trinidad and Tobago’s justice system normally ensure that caution is exercised when selecting juries, and at times, juries are cloistered during trials to attempt to avoid public opinion’s influence. However, expert opinions and media curated evidence usually serve to encourage people out of the courtroom to become a shadow jury (Lazareva, Olinder and Perekrestov 2019, 93-100). As a result, the significance of viewers’ individual opinions on the guilt or innocence of the accused is elevated. Disbelief in the evidence or the court itself may become the story. This may, in turn, cause juries to side with what the majority of the public believes to be true about a defendant, hence delivering a verdict that the public prefers.
Impact of mainstream media on criminal proceedings
Over the years, criminal proceedings have increasingly been opened to the public. Beforehand, this meant that if people desired to see and follow the trial, they would have to attend physically. Today, television broadcasts have made it possible for trials to be much more accessible to more people. The case is also true for a country like Trinidad and Tobago. Similar to the media of Western countries (for example, the United States and the United Kingdom), Trinidad and Tobago’s mainstream media takes a justice event such as a criminal trial and makes it a sensation. Consequently, the way the media portrays the trial and the people involved has the tendency to influence how the case will be perceived (Jewkes 2015).
O’Hear (2019, 1007) posits that the overall picture that Trinidad and Tobago’s media (for example, television and print media) paints about most criminal trials is often skewed and one-sided. In many of these cases, the media often assumes that the defendant is already guilty. To make matters worse, the stories presented by the mainstream media habitually encompass prejudicial information that is hardly permitted during criminal trials. This type of evidence can include the past criminal history (whether or not it is pertinent to the case) of the accused, sensationalized descriptions of the crime and provocative statements by arresting prosecutors or officers (Surette 2014). Add in the often emotional interviews with the deceased’s relatives-a majority of whom openly indicate their belief that the defendant is guilty. It can appear as if virtually everyone interested in the case has their minds made up before selecting the jury.
Nevertheless, what effect does this criminal trial publicity have on the case? Unsurprisingly, research studies have constantly demonstrated that prospective jurors frequently have very negative perceptions toward the defendant. Coupled with having a more likelihood of believing that the defendant is guilty even before the start of the trial, there is an increased possibility of them mistrusting any evidence that the defence presents. As a consequence, they may give a guilty verdict or provide a recommendation against mercy. However, this effect of the media is particularly important in capital cases where the defendant is facing capital punishment. The stakes are higher for the defendants than in normal criminal proceedings, and the publicity surrounding the case is usually more emotional and heated. Although jurors in these trials are required to be objective as possible, this may not be possible when the coverage of media constantly describes the defendant in the trial as a “monster” or “evil” (as is sometimes the case). This is precisely the kind of media coverage that advances the “crime master narrative”, which serves to dehumanize the accused and decontextualize their actions, rendering them more “death-worthy” to jurors (Pugach, Peleg and Ronel 2018, 3-23). Evidently, because nearly everyone will base their opinion on a case from media coverage, no matter how biased, this indicates that how the media portrays a case is usually going to impact the way jurors will vote.
Impact of social media on criminal proceedings
Social media has fuelled interest in all things that are related to crime, offering a forum for people to exchange their perceptions on crimes, even criminal proceedings. The popularity of social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat have changed the way people comprehend and experience criminal trials. This is also true for Trinidad and Tobago, where large numbers of persons express their emotional views about court cases on social media; more high profile cases are becoming like sporting occasions where they tend to “select a side” and become very invested in the result (Watson et al. 2019).
Unfortunately, social media communication can be perilous to the integrity of the courts. Trial by social media has become a concern, especially for criminal proceedings. Social media creates a challenge for court trials since a simple “comment” or “tweet” can be posted, copied and republished across the world within seconds. If the post, tweet, or comment is related to an ongoing trial or case, the availability of such information can present serious complications for the trial. Therefore, activity on these platforms can be threatening to prosecutions and the right to a fair trial through practices like sharing photos of the defendant before a conviction, creating hate groups, or jurors posting their thoughts about a criminal proceeding online.
According to Sinanan (2017), the unregulated utilization of access to social media in the courts can create many problems for the case. For instance, when persons post comments or tweets about a case on social media, there is the risk of defence lawyers utilizing the material coupled with media reports to make a claim that a defendant cannot possibly receive a fair trial. These kinds of submissions can cause such cases to be transferred to another place or even adjourned for long periods of time-delaying and possibly denying justice for all people that are involved. Mistrials are even a possibility. This can particularly happen if there is jury misconduct. Jury misconduct can occur if a juror/s post a verdict on a social media site before a court hand down a verdict or when a juror/s sends an update on the proceeding to his Facebook, Instagram and Twitter accounts. Since there is no standard (except for court or judicial guidelines for monitoring the conduct of jurors), if juror misconduct starts to impact the criminal proceeding process and an individual’s right to trial by an impartial jury, the possibility of mistrials, motions to dismiss, and motions for a new trial could become incessant (Thaddeus and Charles 2018, 259-270). The risk that jurors will read and be impacted by comments on social media by their peers even presents a greater danger, leading to an unfair trial. When jurors are chosen to take part in a trial, they are required to reach their verdict exclusively on the evidence presented in the courtroom.
Furthermore, whereas it is not possible to make sure that jurors are not exposed to social media about a criminal proceeding, a fair trial can only occur in the absence of such material forming part of the basis for a juror’s decision. The utilization of social media can also negatively impact the ethical obligations of lawyers and professional responsibilities. For instance, prolific social media use could impact the provision of competent representation and compliance with confidentiality rules (Boldt and Boyd 2018, 936-948).
Conclusion
Whereas sensational coverage of criminal proceedings will continue to attract Trinbagonians, it is essential to recognize how this will damage the notion of a fair trial. It may be soothing to presume that any person so charged must automatically be guilty of the crime charged, but this is regularly not the case in real life. As many stories of people are sent to jail solely based on circumstantial evidence and pressure by the media, it is becoming clear that public opinions, mainstream media and social media opinions can be wrong over time. It may be more vital than ever to identify a way to strike a balance between the public’s “right to know” with the defendants’ basic rights to a fair trial.
References
Altamirano, Melina, Sarah Berens, and Sandra Ley. 2020. “The Welfare State amid Crime: How Victimization and Perceptions of Insecurity Affect Social Policy Preferences in Latin America and the Caribbean.” Politics & Society 48, no. 3: 389-422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329220940850.
Boldt, Ethan D., and Christina L. Boyd. 2018. “The political responsiveness of violent crime prosecution.” Political Research Quarterly 71, no. 4: 936-948.
Conte, Alex, and Richard Burchill. 2016. Defining Civil and Political Rights: The Jurisprudence of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. London: Routledge.
Garzón, Juan Carlos, and Ana María Rueda. 2020. “Latin America and the Caribbean: complicity and legacy of a long war.” In Research Handbook on International Drug Policy, edited by David R. Bewley-Taylor and Khalid Tinasti. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hoffmeister, Thaddeus, and Ann Charles Watts. 2018. “Social Media, the Internet, and Trial by Jury.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14: 259-270. DOI:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031221.
Hood, Roger, and Florence Seemungal. 2011. “Public Opinion on the Mandatory Death Penalty in Trinidad.” A Report to the Death Penalty Project and the Rights Advocacy Project of the University of West Indies Faculty of Law: 818-38.
Jewkes, Yvonne. 2015. Media and Crime. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Kerrigan, Dylan. 2021. “Exploring Alienation, Bias and Coloniality in Twenty-First Century Magistrates’ Courts of Trinidad and Tobago”. In Decolonial Perspectives on Entangled Inequalities: On Europe and the Caribbean, edited by Encarnación Gutiérrez Rodríguez and Rhoda Reddock, 131.
Lazareva, Valentina A., Nina V. Olinder, and Vadim N. Perekrestov. “Digital Information in Criminal Proceedings: The Concept and Evidential Significance.” In Ubiquitous Computing and the Internet of Things: Prerequisites for the Development of ICT. Springer, Cham.
O’Hear, Michael. 2019. “Violent Crime and Media Coverage in One City: A Statistical Snapshot.” Marquette Law Review. 103: 1007.
Petree, Jonathan S. 2018. “Navigating the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Considerations of Equitable Impact after the United States v. Trinidad.” J. Air L. & Com. 83: 155.
Pugach, Dana, Anat Peleg, and Natti Ronel. 2018. “Lingual injury: Crime Victims between the Criminal Justice System and the Media.” International Review of Victimology 24, no. 1: 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758017730199.
Sinanan, Jolynna. 2017. Social Media in Trinidad: Values and Visibility. UCL Press.
Surette, Ray. 2014. Media, Crime, and Criminal Justice. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Voigt, Stefan. 2021. “Prosecutors: A Cross-National Political Perspective.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press
Watson, Danielle, Lee Michael Johnson, Nathan Pino, and Paula Morgan. 2019. “Police Perceptions of Residents in a High-crime Area in Trinidad and Tobago: Community Framing and Crime Wars.” Criminology & Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895819858372 1748895819858372.
