Trial by Social Media

Are social networks undermining the justice system?

In what has been dubbed the ‘OJ Simpson Case of the new millennium’, Casey Anthony, a mother accused of murdering her two-year-old daughter, Caylee, was recently acquitted in a court in Orlando, Florida.

The case electrified America and made headlines around the world, not just because a young life was cut short, but because of the almost unanimous public agreement that Ms Anthony was guilty of the crime.

While Anthony was convicted of lying to the police and sentenced to four years (the maximum penalty), she was found not guilty of murder. And since she has already served almost four years in custody, she will soon be released. In-depth analysis of the case exists elsewhere, but more interesting from a social media perspective is the role social media played in giving the public an opportunity to take part in the trial without necessarily knowing all the facts.

Given social media played a pivotal role in shaping public opinion, it is eerily appropriate that the first most people heard of the case came from a statement posted on the MySpace profile of Cindy Anthony, Casey’s mother. A few days before Caylee was reported missing, Cindy lamented the fact that her daughter had stolen her car and would not allow her to see her grandchild.

The role of citizen journalism

Since the beginning of the case, social networking sites have been abuzz with gossip relating to it. Of course, high-profile trials have always been talked about, but never before has citizen journalism attempted to take the place of professional reportage. Scores of people lined up every morning to score a much-coveted seat inside the courtroom, while countless more followed the Twitter feed of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida.

Of course, there is no requirement to understand a single legal principle in order to follow the court’s tweets. Likewise, there are no ethical restrictions on bloggers to report the facts of the case in an unbiased manner.

The result was that millions of people devoured – and believed – information about the case regardless of where it came from. The social media fire was fanned by the outrage that comes from the loss of an innocent and helpless child, and resulted in a dangerous chaos of misinformation and assumption.

Small wonder, then, that after being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, Casey Anthony’s not guilty verdict stunned and shocked everyone outside of the courtroom. Inside the courtroom, it had been clear for some time that the prosecution had done such a poor case of connecting the dots that Anthony was unlikely to be found guilty.

Professional court and crime reporters had been lamenting the weakness of the prosecution’s case throughout the entire process. But the sensationalism of the social media reaction drowned out their reasoning and had everyone convinced it could be nothing but a guilty verdict.

Social media as outrage outlet

When Casey Anthony is released, she will be given a new identity to protect her. But should there be restrictions on the involvement of the public in cases like this? Does social media undermine the justice system, or does it highlight how it needs to change? And why do cases like this invite such intense social media involvement? Perhaps, as John Cloud argued in Time Magazine, it’s as simple as the public needing an outlet for its outrage:

‘For the public… the endless variations of the truth coming from Courtroom 23 are fodder for constant posts and reposts, bitter condemnations and many!! exclamation!! points!!!! The Anthony family tale has so many crosscurrents that operate along such electrified moral axes that it’s hard to turn away. If you looked at O.J. Simpson in 1995 and saw a cold-blooded killer trying to get away with it, you could only scream at the television. But if you see murder in Casey Anthony’s big brown eyes during a live feed of her trial, you can tell all the world how delectable you will find her execution.’