传媒监督司法审判的边界

发布时间：2018-12-31 17:15

【摘要】：随着科技化、信息化的发展，特别是互联网技术和移动手机终端的结合，传媒对社会生活的渗透无孔不入，对司法审判的监督力度与日俱增。在案件审理过程中，传媒超越司法程序“未审先判”的情况时有发生，形成了具有中国特色的“媒体审判”现象。 “媒体审判”现象超出了监督司法的界限，或对案件进行不当报道、评论、或把“法律审”变成“道德判”，它所形成的强大社会舆论严重影响了法官对案件的理性判断，损害了诉讼当事人特别是犯罪嫌疑人及被告人获得公平审判的权利，影响了司法公正，甚至动摇了“审判独立”的宪法原则。 “媒体审判”现象的本质是新闻自由和司法独立两种价值的冲突。由于中国社会处于政治、经济转型期的特殊性，新闻自由和司法独立的发育都没有达到理想状态，集中表现为传媒对司法审判进行舆论监督的失范。“媒体审判”现象的产生有我国体制内生性深层次原因，一是我国媒体行政化管理企业化经营的二元模式导致媒体一方面以“官媒”身份扩张自己的“话语霸权”，漠视法律；一方面受利益驱动炒作案件，追逐发行量和收视率，误导舆论。二是审判独立的宪法原则未真正落实，主要表现为司法行政化、地方化的特点，片面强调以社会效果评价审判工作业绩的标准。三是司法审判与公众的冲突的表现为程序公正与实体公正的价值冲突，法律评价和道德评价的内在矛盾，以及对法律事实和新闻事实的认识偏差。根据传媒和司法的不同规律，我国应当从虚心借鉴域外先进经验入手，寻找解决两者冲突的途径，厘清边界，，进而规制传媒对司法审判的舆论监督。本文主要考察了英国的司法限制媒体模式，美国的司法自我约束模式和大陆法系国家的司法对媒体开放模式，均起到了较好的平衡传媒与司法关系的作用。结合我国法治文化传统，其中最值得借鉴的是大陆法系严格保障审判独立前提下的司法对媒体开放模式。由此，从中国特殊的国情出发，笔者认为传媒监督司法审判应当在坚持新闻自由的前提下遵守以下原则。一是新闻采访遵守审判公开原则，包括采访庭审以公开审理为限；庭审录音录像遵守法庭规则；采访法官的时间、方式、范围限制；采访报道遵守审判秘密；二是对未成年人案件“特殊保护”原则；三是遵守无罪推定原则；四是监督审判适用“实际恶意”原则。传媒要恰当地行使对司法审判的监督权，还要按照大众传播的规律，加强自律，坚持平衡报道的原则，坚持事实和评论分开的原则，确保对司法活动的舆论监督在合理的边界内。基于上述分析，提出防范“媒体审判”的四点设想，一是加快推动制定《新闻法》步伐；二是深化司法改革确保独立审判；三是进一步完善司法公开制度；四是加强对网络媒体及自媒体的监管。
[Abstract]:With the development of science and technology, information technology, especially the combination of Internet technology and mobile phone terminal, the media permeate social life everywhere, and the supervision of judicial trial is increasing day by day. In the process of case trial, the media transcend the judicial procedure and "not adjudicate first" from time to time, forming the phenomenon of "media trial" with Chinese characteristics. The phenomenon of "media trial" has gone beyond the limits of supervising the administration of justice, or conducting improper reports, commenting on cases, or turning "legal trial" into "moral judgment". The strong public opinion it has formed has seriously affected the judge's rational judgment of the case. It damages the right of litigants, especially the suspects and defendants, to get a fair trial, affects judicial justice, and even shakes the constitutional principle of "trial independence". The essence of "Media trial" is the conflict between the freedom of the press and the independence of the judiciary. Due to the particularity of Chinese society in the political and economic transition period, the development of press freedom and judicial independence has not reached the ideal state. There are deep reasons for the phenomenon of "media trial". Firstly, the dual mode of administrative management of media in our country leads the media to expand their "discourse hegemony" with the status of "official media" and ignore the law. On the one hand, driven by the interests of speculation cases, chasing circulation and ratings, misleading public opinion. Second, the constitutional principle of judicial independence has not really been implemented, which is mainly manifested in the characteristics of the administration of justice and localization, and the one-sided emphasis on the standard of evaluating the performance of trial work by social effect. Third, the conflict between the judicial trial and the public is the value conflict between the procedural justice and the substantive justice, the inherent contradiction between the legal evaluation and the moral evaluation, as well as the deviation of the understanding of the legal facts and the news facts. According to the different laws of media and judicature, our country should draw lessons from foreign advanced experience with an open mind, seek the way to resolve the conflict between them, clarify the boundary, and then regulate the supervision of media on judicial judgment by public opinion. This paper mainly examines the British judicial restriction media model, the American judicial self-restraint model and the continental law countries' judicial open media mode, which play a better role in balancing the relationship between the media and the judiciary. In combination with the cultural tradition of rule of law in our country, the most worthy reference is the open mode of justice to the media under the premise of strict guarantee of judicial independence in the continental law system. Therefore, according to the special national conditions of China, the author thinks that the media supervision and judicial trial should abide by the following principles on the premise of press freedom. The first is that the news interview abide by the principle of open trial, including that the hearing of the interview is limited to the public hearing; the audio and video recording of the hearing complies with the rules of the court; the time, method and scope of the interview with the judge are limited; the report of the interview follows the trial secrets; Second, the principle of "special protection" for minor cases; third, the principle of presumption of innocence; and fourth, the application of the principle of "actual malice" to supervision and trial. The media should exercise the right of supervision over judicial trials properly, strengthen self-discipline in accordance with the law of mass communication, adhere to the principle of balancing reporting, and adhere to the principle of separating facts from comments. Ensure that the supervision of public opinion on judicial activities is within a reasonable boundary. Based on the above analysis, this paper puts forward four tentative ideas for preventing "media trial", one is to speed up the pace of making the Press Law, the other is to deepen the judicial reform to ensure independent trial, and third, to further improve the system of judicial openness; Fourth, strengthen the supervision of network media and self-media.
【学位授予单位】：暨南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D922.16;D926

【参考文献】