【摘要】：隨著科技化、信息化的發(fā)展，特別是互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)和移動(dòng)手機(jī)終端的結(jié)合，傳媒對(duì)社會(huì)生活的滲透無孔不入，對(duì)司法審判的監(jiān)督力度與日俱增。在案件審理過程中，傳媒超越司法程序“未審先判”的情況時(shí)有發(fā)生，形成了具有中國特色的“媒體審判”現(xiàn)象。 “媒體審判”現(xiàn)象超出了監(jiān)督司法的界限，或?qū)Π讣M(jìn)行不當(dāng)報(bào)道、評(píng)論、或把“法律審”變成“道德判”，它所形成的強(qiáng)大社會(huì)輿論嚴(yán)重影響了法官對(duì)案件的理性判斷，損害了訴訟當(dāng)事人特別是犯罪嫌疑人及被告人獲得公平審判的權(quán)利，影響了司法公正，甚至動(dòng)搖了“審判獨(dú)立”的憲法原則。 “媒體審判”現(xiàn)象的本質(zhì)是新聞自由和司法獨(dú)立兩種價(jià)值的沖突。由于中國社會(huì)處于政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型期的特殊性，新聞自由和司法獨(dú)立的發(fā)育都沒有達(dá)到理想狀態(tài)，集中表現(xiàn)為傳媒對(duì)司法審判進(jìn)行輿論監(jiān)督的失范�！懊襟w審判”現(xiàn)象的產(chǎn)生有我國體制內(nèi)生性深層次原因，一是我國媒體行政化管理企業(yè)化經(jīng)營的二元模式導(dǎo)致媒體一方面以“官媒”身份擴(kuò)張自己的“話語霸權(quán)”，漠視法律；一方面受利益驅(qū)動(dòng)炒作案件，追逐發(fā)行量和收視率，誤導(dǎo)輿論。二是審判獨(dú)立的憲法原則未真正落實(shí)，主要表現(xiàn)為司法行政化、地方化的特點(diǎn)，片面強(qiáng)調(diào)以社會(huì)效果評(píng)價(jià)審判工作業(yè)績的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。三是司法審判與公眾的沖突的表現(xiàn)為程序公正與實(shí)體公正的價(jià)值沖突，法律評(píng)價(jià)和道德評(píng)價(jià)的內(nèi)在矛盾，以及對(duì)法律事實(shí)和新聞事實(shí)的認(rèn)識(shí)偏差。 根據(jù)傳媒和司法的不同規(guī)律，我國應(yīng)當(dāng)從虛心借鑒域外先進(jìn)經(jīng)驗(yàn)入手，尋找解決兩者沖突的途徑，厘清邊界，，進(jìn)而規(guī)制傳媒對(duì)司法審判的輿論監(jiān)督。本文主要考察了英國的司法限制媒體模式，美國的司法自我約束模式和大陸法系國家的司法對(duì)媒體開放模式，均起到了較好的平衡傳媒與司法關(guān)系的作用。結(jié)合我國法治文化傳統(tǒng)，其中最值得借鑒的是大陸法系嚴(yán)格保障審判獨(dú)立前提下的司法對(duì)媒體開放模式。 由此，從中國特殊的國情出發(fā)，筆者認(rèn)為傳媒監(jiān)督司法審判應(yīng)當(dāng)在堅(jiān)持新聞自由的前提下遵守以下原則。一是新聞采訪遵守審判公開原則，包括采訪庭審以公開審理為限；庭審錄音錄像遵守法庭規(guī)則；采訪法官的時(shí)間、方式、范圍限制；采訪報(bào)道遵守審判秘密；二是對(duì)未成年人案件“特殊保護(hù)”原則；三是遵守?zé)o罪推定原則；四是監(jiān)督審判適用“實(shí)際惡意”原則。傳媒要恰當(dāng)?shù)匦惺箤?duì)司法審判的監(jiān)督權(quán)，還要按照大眾傳播的規(guī)律，加強(qiáng)自律，堅(jiān)持平衡報(bào)道的原則，堅(jiān)持事實(shí)和評(píng)論分開的原則，確保對(duì)司法活動(dòng)的輿論監(jiān)督在合理的邊界內(nèi)�；谏鲜龇治�，提出防范“媒體審判”的四點(diǎn)設(shè)想，一是加快推動(dòng)制定《新聞法》步伐；二是深化司法改革確保獨(dú)立審判；三是進(jìn)一步完善司法公開制度；四是加強(qiáng)對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)媒體及自媒體的監(jiān)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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：暨南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D922.16;D926

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳建云;吳淑慧;;輿論監(jiān)督三十年歷程與變革[J];當(dāng)代傳播;2009年04期

2 張冠楠;;“媒介審判”下的司法困境[J];法學(xué);2011年05期

3 顧培東;論對(duì)司法的傳媒監(jiān)督[J];法學(xué)研究;1999年06期

4 賀衛(wèi)方;傳媒與司法三題[J];法學(xué)研究;1998年06期

5 李磊;;傳媒與司法關(guān)系思考[J];理論探索;2011年05期

6 商登琿;;新媒體視野下媒介審判與司法公正的博弈——以“藥家鑫案”為例[J];西南石油大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年03期

7 倪壽明;;公開是解決司法難題的一劑良方[J];人民司法;2011年09期

8 景漢朝;傳媒監(jiān)督與司法獨(dú)立的沖突與契合[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2002年01期

9 林愛s

本文編號(hào)：2396877