Social media trials determine guilt before courts of law

When you hear someone is arrested for the killing of another human being, you feel pity for the dead person and anger against the person who was accused of the killing. You have already made the perception that the accused person is the actual killer.

Are they?

Did you see the 'accused killer' kill the dead person? Or, have you just made an assumption of his guilt based solely on media reports spread with 'enraged' and 'infuriated' captions on social media. How rational is it to make a judgment about one's innocence or guilt just based on such assumptions?

They may well not be the killer. Perhaps they have somehow become entrapped in a mess!

One just doesn't know the truth!

You should not think and should never address anyone as a criminal or a murderer until and unless they are proven to be so in a court of law. Until then they are considered innocent before the law. This legal principle is known as "innocent until proven guilty"

You may, however, address them as a person 'accused' of killing.

An accused is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law

Under the 'innocent until proven guilty" principle, the guilt of an accused person cannot be presumed and they must be assumed to be innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.

In a court of law:

·         the person accused of committing a crime (who is called 'defendant' in legal terms) does not need to prove his innocence.

·         the prosecution lawyer, who is an advocate instituting legal proceedings against the accused person in a case or lawsuit, must overcome this presumption of innocence and prove the accused person is guilty;

·         the accused person enjoys the benefit of the doubt, meaning that if there remains the slightest doubt regarding his guilt, he must be found not guilty.

Trial: social media v court of law

Social media has revolutionised the way we think, perceive, decide and act.

Had the revolution brought positive changes, there could have been fewer complications in the way we judge social media. Unfortunately, the revolution in communication and interaction among humans brought on by social media has also brought negative consequences.

Social media often tries and demonises a person far before he or she is proven guilty (in a court of law.

Due to our inherent natures we humans are judgmental. Whenever we hear a negative rumour about some person, we tend to judge them without even caring to dig into the (factual) matter and without any proof (in favour or against).

This human characteristic – which is often expressed on social media these days – is harming the way criminal investigations and trials take place. Whenever a video of any crime spreads in social media, we begin sharing the video with captions demonising the person appearing to be at the wrong side as per our own judgment, without even bothering to be sure of the authenticity of the video and of other related and relevant issues.

We rush into terming an 'accused' person a 'criminal,' a person 'accused of' raping a 'rapist,' an 'accused killer' a 'murderer' and so on.

In doing so, we forget that we cannot simply address or term someone as murderer, rapist or criminal unless he or she is proven guilty of committing the particular crime. And such proof has to be endorsed by the decision of a court of law, not merely by public opinion or social media trial.

A person can be addressed or termed as criminal only when he or she is proven in a court of law to have committed the crime, of which he had primarily been accused of. Not otherwise.

It is the duty of the parliament and the judiciary to take notice of the abovementioned developing scenario within our society that violates the universal legal principle: a person is deemed to be "innocent until proven guilty."