Nowadays, some criminal trials are heard in public through TV. Does the advantage outweigh its disadvantage?


Nowadays, an increasing number of criminal trials are heard in public through the cable and this brings both good and bad effects.

Positively speaking, when criminal trials are heard in public, they become more transparent under the supervision of the general public. In this way, it can effectively avoid some misbehavior like corruption, bribery and injustice since judges will deal with many cases more carefully considering that their decisions will be evaluated by the public. Take crimes in which a high-level official is involved as an example. If the crime involves a high-level official, chances are that this official may bribe or coerce the judge to give him a ridiculously lenient sentence. However, when the crime is heard in public, neither the official nor the judge dares to brazenly defy the law under the pressure of public opinions.

Nevertheless, the exposure of criminal trials to the public can also bring many problems to the society since many potential criminals may follow their modus operand. Take the BRT bombing case in Xiamen as an example. Ever since the coverage of such crime, criminals in other cities also imitate this way of taking revenge on society. Therefore, the exposure of such crimes can sometimes be a source of imitation for other criminals. Besides, the exposure of such crimes can also cause panic in the society.

Despite the possible negative effects brought by the exposure of criminal trials to the public, I still believe criminal trials should be heard in public considering the justice in can bring to the society and the rights of information it endows to the general public.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here