Vanessa Kasonde & Teddy Musonda
With
more than half of the world's population connected to the internet, the media's
power to shape public opinion has grown exponentially. Yet, its influence on judicial
systems, more particularly, as to whether public opinion (that is shaped by the
media) forms public interest thus influencing legal processes, remains under
examined. This article argues that while popular public opinion can highlight
societal concerns and the prevailing disposition of members of the society, it
must not overshadow the judiciary's commitment to due process of the law and
the administration of justice in the end. Through a critical analysis of case
law and selected worldwide events that have commanded widespread attention, we
explore the interplay between public opinion and judicial independence, and the
media’s role in the interplay.
1. What
is public opinion?
Public
opinion may be defined as an aggregate of the individual views, attitudes, and
beliefs about a particular topic, expressed by a significant section of a
community[1]. Some scholars treat the
aggregate as a amalgamation of the views of all or a certain section of
society; others regard it as a collection of many differing or opposing views.[2] In essence, public opinion
may be regarded as the average perception of a particular event or issue, by
members of a society who have expressed or reflected in their attitude, their
individual views and feelings on the specific subject. Indeed, Popular opinion often forms in the
response to societal events, becoming a powerful fore that influences public
perception of justice.
It
is noteworthy to mention that public opinion should not be understood as to
mean public interest. though closely related they are not synonymous, public
interest in Attorney General v Roy Clarke[3]
was defined as the interest of the public in the proper administration of
justice and the maintenance of law and order. In Post Newspapers limited v
Attorney General[4] it was defined as in the interest of the
public being informed and in having access to information which is of public
concern. The above cases illustrate that the concept of “public interest” is a
complex and multifaceted one and its legal definition can vary depending on the
context.
Generally,
it refers to the wellbeing of the community as a whole rather than the interest
of individual persons or groups. Public interest is broader than public opinion
in that while public opinion is formed by the majority of views by members of a
society, public interest looks at the welfare of that society regardless of the
popular views expressed from it. While it is absolutely true that public
opinion has a hand in informing public interest, public interest also takes
into consideration established legal norms, principles and precedents in order
to determine what is in the best interest of the society.
To
exemplify the foregoing, take for instance that in society X, it is believed
that murdering a person suspected of witchcraft is a virtuous act and murderers
of witches/wizards must not be convicted – this belief can be considered as
public opinion. However, public interest (which seeks to advance law and order)
would regard such a public opinion to be a perpetuation of violence in that
society which would have the potential to affect even the innocent in that very
society – they innocent may be killed simply because they were suspected as
being witches/wizards. Therefore, because of such dangers, the courts, due to
public interest, are expected to still convict individuals who murder others
suspected to be witches/wizards, contrary to public opinion.
The
importance of understanding why public opinion should not be understood as
public interest is because the courts are obliged, in some instances, to make
decisions that serve public interest. However, this then should not mean that
the courts should make decisions that serve public opinion.
2. Influence
of public opinion on legal systems
While
public opinion can reflect genuine concerns it also be driven by emotion or
misinformation, complicating the legal system’s impartiality. This can be
illustrated using an examination of recent ongoing cases in the United States
[we tread carefully on this so as not to be contemptuous to the respective
courts hearing the cases). Firstly, the Luigi Mangione case, Luigi Mangione
is accused of fatally shooting the UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on
December 4, 2024. This case received a wave of overwhelming positive public
support for Luigi Mangione creating a confluence of public emotion, systematic
critique and legal philosophy. The support the accused has received on social
media platforms such as TikTok has influenced the headlines perpetuated by
large news platforms such as CNN, Sky News Australia and YouTube. The public
considers the accused as a saviour, an innocent man who should not be punished.
Their overwhelming support for him led the public rallying and raising money
for his bail and legal fees. One donor wrote, “Luigi poses no
danger to society, except to those greedy executives…Governors Hochul and
Shapiro should pardon him right now!!’’[5]
This
however, is contrasted from the Sean Combs ‘Diddy’ case, which
involved allegations of child abuse, the allegations became a media spectacle with
public opinion forming quickly. The emotional nature of the case created a public
demand for immediate justice. public opinion seems to have already convicted
diddy for the crimes he is being tried for, the public thus puts pressure on the
legal system to find Diddy as guilty as they opine he is. yet the rush to
judgement as to respond to public opinion risks undermining the principle of a
fair trial.
In
Zambia, the legal challenges surrounding former President Edgar Lungu's
eligibility to contest as President of Zambia generated heated public debates,
with many citizens voicing opinions through media outlets. These media-driven
opinions put immense pressure on the legal system to swiftly address the
matter, raising concerns about whether the rule of law would be maintained
amidst intense public scrutiny[6]. With more than 1.8
million people following pages like ‘Zambia Reports’ and other influential
social media pages, the full extent the media can have on public opinion in the
coming years is yet to be experienced and examined. The examples of these cases
illustrate the complexities of public opinion's influence on the legal system.
While public opinion often reflects the values and concerns of society, its
role in legal proceedings must be carefully managed to avoid bias, particularly
in high-profile cases.
3. The
media’s influence in shaping public opinion and the legal system.
The
media has long been a powerful tool in shaping public opinion, and its
influence on the legal system is undeniable. Through various channels—news
outlets, social media platforms, opinion pieces, and broadcasts—the media not
only informs the public but also frames perceptions of legal cases. While the
media serves as an essential tool for transparency, its influence can sometimes
blur the lines between informing the public and swaying the judicial process.
In this section, we examine the role of the media in shaping public opinion and
its potential impact on the legal system.
Media’s influence on legal
proceedings:
The media often brings attention to high-profile legal cases, playing a
significant role in shaping public perception. The way a case is covered can
influence how the public forms opinions about guilt and innocence, sometimes
before the case even reaches the courtroom. This is known as "trial by
media," where preconceived judgments can be formed by the public,
undermining the fairness of the trial. A Slovak Constitutional Court Judge, Ivetta
Macejková, opined the following:
“No judge lives in isolation.
Therefore, I am conscious of public opinion polls, various petitions, newspaper
articles, discussions, proclamations of politicians and lawyers, and public
assemblies… Judges in democracies cannot win public trust by seeking publicity
and following public moods. They can win trust only by deciding according to law,
without regard to public opinion.”[7]
The
foregoing statement from a judge just shows how influential public opinion
stirred by the media is and could be on judges in their decision making. In the
Luigi Mangione case, the media’s sensationalized portrayal of the
accused as a hero impacted public opinion. This could potentially affect the
way the judges approach the case. Similarly, the Diddy case, which
involved allegations of child abuse, heightened emotional public responses and
created pressure for quick justice. most opinions expressed on most media
outlets portray him as guilty man, an example of this is an expression by Aubrey
O’Day – an American singer and former Danity Kane member. The celebrity on her
Instagram story said:
“the purpose of justice is to
provide an ending and allow us the space to create a new chapter, women never
get this. I feel validated. Today is a win for women all over the world, not
just for me.”[8]
The
concluding phrase ‘today is win for women all over the world, not just for me’
just highlights how the celebrity believes Diddy to be guilty. This is one of
many opinions shared that portray Diddy as guilty. This therefore, may
undermine the due process of law, as a swamp of public opinions might cloud
judicial independence. This is even more dangerous in the United States because
the innocence and guiltiness of the accused is determined by a jury that comes
from different walks of life – some not experts – thus, public opinion may
easily influence their thinking or portrayal of the accused brought before
them.
Balancing the Right to Information and
the right to a Fair Trial:
One of the challenges at the intersection of media and the legal system is
balancing the public’s right to be informed and the parties to legal
proceedings’ right to a fair trial. In Zambia, the freedom of the press is a
fundamental right encapsulated under the right to expression which is protected
by Article 20 of the Constitution[9].
However, due to media coverage’s
potential to distort or prejudice ongoing legal proceedings thus affecting the
right to a fair trial, the right to expression must be curtailed in certain
circumstances. In Zambia one would be held in contempt of court for expressing
views about an ongoing legal proceeding before the courts that seem to
prejudice the process, so as to cause others to look at the judicial system
with impunity, ridicule…
In
cases like Edgar Chagwa Lungu, where media coverage plays a significant
role in shaping public opinion about the issues before the court, the public’s
opinion may influence the judicial process, challenging the impartiality of the
courts. Legal mechanisms such as gag orders and pre-trial publicity
restrictions exist to ensure that media influence does not prejudice the legal
proceedings. However, with the rise of social media and freedom of press, these
efforts can be complicated, making it difficult to maintain a fair trial.
Ethical Considerations for the Media: Media outlets have a responsibility
to report on legal matters with accuracy, fairness, and integrity. Journalists
should refrain from sensationalism or speculative reporting, as this can sway
public opinion and, by extension, influence the course of justice[10].
Ethical standards, such as the Journalism Ethics Code[11],
encourage journalists to report without bias, ensuring the presumption of
innocence is respected and facts are presented truthfully.
The
Role of Social Media: Social media has exacerbated the relationship between
media and the legal system, providing instant access to information but also
enabling the spread of misinformation. Platforms like X formerly Twitter,
Facebook, and Instagram create environments where public opinion can form
quickly, potentially undermining the legal process. Social media often
contributes to the “mob mentality,” where individuals rally behind a narrative
without fully understanding the case, influencing the public’s perception and
legal outcomes.
4. Striking a Balance Between Public Opinion
and Legal Integrity
As explored
throughout this article, public opinion, often shaped by the media, plays a
pivotal role in shaping the perceptions and expectations of the public,
particularly in high-profile or politically charged legal cases. While public
opinion is an essential element of democratic societies, it should never be
allowed to overshadow the integrity of the legal system. Legal professionals,
including judges, lawyers, and the media, are entrusted with the responsibility
of ensuring that justice is dispensed fairly, impartially, and in accordance
with the rule of law, regardless of external pressures.
It can be
noted that the media's influence on public opinion can both inform and distort
the public’s understanding of legal cases. Cases such as Luigi Mangione, Diddy,
and Edgar Chagwa Lungu illustrate the complex relationship between public
opinion and the legal process, where media coverage often intensifies the
stakes and magnifies public interest, sometimes to the detriment of impartial
justice.
The
Need for Judicial Independence: One of the key themes discussed is the
importance of judicial independence. Judges must resist public pressure and
deliver decisions based solely on the facts and the law. The Luigi Mangione
case highlights the challenges judges face in maintaining this independence,
particularly when public opinion is strong and media portrayals of the accused
or case escalate the intensity of the scrutiny.
Judicial
independence remains the cornerstone of fair justice. Without this, the legal
system risks becoming a tool for political or popular agendas, compromising the
very foundations upon which the rule of law rests.
The
Ethical Role of the Media: The ethical responsibility of the media has been
another focal point of this article. Media outlets are tasked with ensuring
that their coverage does not distort or sensationalise legal matters. Ethical
reporting serves the public interest by providing accurate, balanced
information, without prejudicing legal proceedings or compromising the fairness
of trials. As seen in cases like the Diddy case, media reporting can
significantly shape public opinion, which in turn impacts the judicial process.
Therefore, ethical journalism is essential in upholding the integrity of the
legal system.
Upholding
Due Process: The role of public opinion in shaping legal outcomes is
inevitable, particularly in a media-driven society. However, public sentiment
should never override due process. The legal system must maintain its focus on
fairness, transparency, and impartiality, even when faced with intense public
scrutiny. It is essential that public opinion is informed and educated about legal
principles to ensure that the public do not have a misconceived view towards
the justice system.
5. Recommendations for Maintaining
Balance
To address
the challenges posed by public opinion, several steps can be taken to maintain the
balance:
- Legal
Education and Public Awareness: Educating the public about the legal
process, the importance of the presumption of innocence, and the need for
impartiality is vital. This will help mitigate the negative effects of
sensationalised media coverage and create a more informed citizenry.
- Transparency
in the Legal Process: Courts and legal authorities must prioritise
transparency to maintain public trust. By ensuring that the public
understands the reasons behind legal decisions, the legal system can
reinforce its credibility and independence.
- Ethical
Media Practices: The media must adhere to ethical standards that promote
accuracy and fairness in their coverage of legal cases. This includes
avoiding bias, refraining from sensationalism, and respecting the presumption
of innocence.
- Judicial
Safeguards: Judicial systems should implement measures to protect the
independence of the judiciary from external pressures, ensuring that
judges can make decisions free from public opinion or political influence.
Conclusion
The
intersection of public opinion and the legal system presents an ongoing
challenge. While public opinion is vital to a functioning democracy, it must
not be allowed to compromise the fairness and impartiality of the legal
process. Legal professionals, the media, and society as a whole must work
together to ensure that justice is served without undue influence from the
court of public opinion. Striking the right balance between maintaining the
integrity of the legal system and addressing the public’s interest requires a
commitment to transparency, ethics, and education—ultimately ensuring that the
law serves its true purpose of upholding justice for all.
[2] Ibid
[3] [2008]
ZMSC 4
[4] [1995]
ZMHC 1
[6] M,
Hanych, H, Smekal and J, Benák, ‘The Influence of Public Opinion and Media on
Judicial Decision-Making: Elite Judges’
Perceptions and Strategies’ (2023) 14(3) International Journal for Court
Administration 2. DOI: https://doi. org/10.36745/ijca.528.
[7] Judgment
of the Slovak Constitutional Court, PL. ÚS 7/2017-159, 31 May 2017-
[8] Aubrey O’day (@aubreyoday). ““the
purpose of justice is to provide an ending and allow us the space to create a
new chapter, women never get this. I feel validated. Today is a win for women
all over the world, not just for me.” Instagram Story, September, 16th,
2024.
[9] (1991)
as amended by Act No. 2 of 2016.
[10]
Delbet, What Ethical Considerations Do Broadcast Journalists Need To Keep In
Mind When Reporting On Sensitive Or Controversial Issues? - CPI Journalism -
All About Journalism, January 4, 2023. https://cpijournalism.org/ethical-considerations-broadcast/
[11] Society of professional Journalists.
“SPJ Code of Ethics.” Revised September 6,2014, at SPJ’s National Convention,
Nashville, Tennessee, accessed January 5, 2025, https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.
About the Authors:
