导　　师： 刘文静

学科专业： 0301

授予学位： 硕士

作　　者： ;

机构地区： 暨南大学

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。 With the development of science and technology improvement and informatization,,especially the broad use of internet and population of mobile phones, supervision by publicopinion on the judicial trials has been influencing the whole society more and more deep andbroad. This brings unnegligible impact and great pressure to the judiciary, and has formed anunique phenomenon of “media trial”with Chinese characteristics. “Media trial” has gone far beyond the boundaries of proper supervision to the judiciaryby the general public. Reports and comments to cases in trial have increased the risk ofdeviating judicial trial to “moral trial” and affecting the reasonable judgment of courts andjudges, and are causing possible encroachment on procedural rights of the parties, especiallythe suspect and the accused person,, and are eroding the constitutional principal of judicialindependence “Trial by media” reflects the conflict between freedom of expression and judicialindependence. In a period of economic and political transformation, neither freedom of theexpression nor judicial independence has got a chance of fully development incontemporary China. Thus makes it difficult to lead media supervision to a prudent andreasonable way.. The reason of “media trial” may attributes to three main reasons. First, themodel of administrative regulation and enterprise-operation of media in China brings adilemma in mass communication: on the one hand, media enjoy the privilege of discoursehegemony brought by their 'official' identity /(all media in China are state owned/); on theother hand, chasing of circulation and audience ratings will inevitably cauase misleading ofthe public opinion. Second, substantial achievement in judicial reform and judicialindependence are yet to be expected. Both the administrative characteristics of the judiciaryand interference from local government need to be paid attention to. Besides, emphasizing“social effect” as an important standard in evaluating the achievernent of trial work hasshown its negative effect.. Third, conflicts between judicial judgments and publicanticipation indicate the conflicts between procedural justice and substantial justice, as well as between judicial judgment and moral evaluation, and, the cognitive deviation betweenlegal facts and “facts” as a term in news report. Considering the different principles of mass media and that of the judiciary, Chinashould take its step to clarify the boundary between proper media supervision and “mediatrial” starting with learning from matured foreign experience, to find ways to solve theconflict between the media and judicature. This paper inspected judicial restrictions on themedia model in the United Kingdom. The United States’ mode of self-control and judicialtransparency of the civil law countries have also been taking into account. The author thinks that we should proceed from China's specific national conditions, tocomply with the following principles in the premise of promoting the freedom of express.The first one is to limit interviews within the statuary limitation of; the second is to followthe principle of 'special protection' to juveniles; the third is that the principle of thepresumption of innocence should be strictly carried out; and finally, the principle of 'actualmalice' should be adopted in supervision of judicial trials. The media should exercise theirright of supervision properly when the rules of public communication are being followed.Self-discipline of the media and the principle of balanced reporting, and distinguishbetween facts and comments will also be helpful to make balance between necessarymedia supervision and independent trials of the judiciary.

关 键 词： 传媒 舆论监督 司法审判 冲突 边界

分 类 号： [D922.16 D926]

领　　域： [政治法律] [政治法律] [政治法律]