Social media has spread to every aspect of our lives. It affects our feelings, thoughts,
We now share our rebellion, our celebrations, and even our losses on social media. Of course, part of these shares is our search for justice, our anger against injustice, and
our expectations. Well, the judicial system, the sharp and sometimes brutal nature of social media
How does it take shape under its influence?
Especially in cases involving social sensitivity, the pressure from the social media masses is immediate.
It is felt that some investigations, arrest and release decisions are trending on social media.
The introduction of the law strengthens the demand to act with the “conscience of the people” in the manifestation of justice. On the one hand, this may seem to allow justice to be carried out faster and more transparently. However, there is a painful side to this situation: Should the justice system act with social reactions or should it adhere to legal norms?
Transparency or Populism?
The transparency of the justice system thanks to social media is actually a great gain for society.
Citizens questioning the events taking place, raising their voice against injustice, and making statements on many issues.
It creates awareness. There are some cases that if it weren't for social media, no one would even know about. The most important of these are the cases involving children and animals. People,
If the media did not have the voices of these innocent people, could justice really be served? These platforms allow victims to make their voices heard and carry their quest for rights to the public.
So far so good. However, if social media pressure extends to the courts, we face a danger: Judicial independence.
Are Twitter (X) Courts Fair?
We always say that the judicial system should be impartial and independent. The scales of justice are the social media masses
How can we be sure that this scale is accurate if it is tilted according to the reactions of society?
To what extent can populist decisions made to appease the public be compatible with universal principles of law?
However, the manifestation of justice should be shaped according to the rule of law, not social media populism. Because the nature of justice requires acting on solid ground and with principles rather than making quick decisions.
There is also the issue that social media has its own “lynching culture” that can sometimes lead to unhealthy events.
casts a shadow on the evaluation. Before the judicial process has even started, a verdict of guilty or not guilty can be given.
Those who are arrested can be stigmatized in the eyes of society. In this case, while justice is expected to ease consciences, the judicial processes are overshadowed with the opposite effect. In short, the justice sought is often not found on social media.
Is It Possible to Seek Justice Without Social Media?
Social media can accelerate the establishment of justice in the conscience. However, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law provide a protective framework for all segments of society. Judicial bodies should make decisions based solely on the principles of law, without being influenced by social media reactions. This is a difficult task, because the public reaction will always put pressure on the judiciary. However, in the long term, justice requires resisting this pressure.
It should not be forgotten that the judiciary should be one of the most trusted institutions in society. The ability of the judiciary to act independently also nourishes society's faith in the justice system. Justice should continue its existence as a guide that enlightens society and helps us find the truth, without being bent or twisted by the influence of social media.
Comments