The spectacle of justice: When criminal law becomes a media show

In recent decades, criminal justice has witnessed a concerning transformation: the rise of spectacle justice. This phenomenon occurs when judicial processes cease to be a tool for conflict resolution and become media spectacles. In this context, public opinion is manipulated through strategic leaks, sensationalist coverage, and the active participation of judges and prosecutors who seem to seek prominence instead of the correct application of the law.

1. Characteristics of Spectacle Justice

The concept of spectacle justice is characterized by several elements that distort the judicial process and affect the impartiality of the criminal system:

• Selective information leaks: Investigation documents are released to the media before the parties involved have access to them.

• Parallel trials in public opinion: The media presents defendants as guilty or innocent before a court issues a verdict.

• Media-savvy judges and prosecutors: Some magistrates grant interviews, leak information, or adopt a public stance that influences the perception of the case.

• Judicialization of political conflicts: Courts are used to weaken political adversaries or gain influence in public opinion.

• Sentences conditioned by media pressure: Judges may fear making unpopular decisions due to fear of public repercussions.

2. The Risks of Spectacle Justice

The media coverage of the criminal process carries serious consequences for the rule of law:

• Erodes the presumption of innocence: A defendant exposed in the media is socially condemned before having a verdict.

• Undue pressure on judges and prosecutors: Public opinion can influence judicial decisions, undermining their impartiality.

• Arbitrary use of criminal action: High-profile media cases are prioritized while others are relegated.

• Violation of the right to defense: The leak of confidential information compromises due process.

• Distrust in justice: If the judicial process is perceived as a spectacle, the legitimacy of the criminal system is weakened.

3. The Distortion of the Criminal Process: From Justice to Spectacle

Professor Ferrando Mantovani warned about the dangers of allowing cameras into trials. According to him, this caused a distortion of the procedural actors: witnesses, judges, prosecutors, and lawyers stopped acting according to their legal role and began to behave as characters in a media staging. The concern for image and public impact replaces the search for truth and the objective application of the law.

In this context, concerning collateral effects can be identified:

• Alteration of the behavior of judicial actors: Judges and prosecutors adjust their speeches and gestures for the media instead of focusing on the law.

• Conditioning of witnesses: In media trials, witnesses may exaggerate or alter their testimonies due to social pressure.

• Politicization of the criminal process: Judicial cases are essentialized to reinforce political narratives.

International Examples

Italy: The "Mani Pulite" Case

In the 90s, the "Mani Pulite" operation exposed corruption cells in Italian politics. However, prosecutors like Antonio Di Pietro became media figures, holding press conferences and leaking case details to the press. Although the fight against corruption was crucial, the media coverage of the criminal process raised doubts about its impartiality.

United States: The O.J. Simpson Trial

The O.J. Simpson case in 1995 was televised worldwide, transforming the trial into a spectacle. The defense strategy focused on manipulating public opinion rather than rebutting the evidence. The theatricalization of the trial affected the perception of justice and demonstrated how media pressure can distort judicial administration.

4. The Role of the Prosecutor in Spectacle Justice

One of the most concerning aspects is the "media prosecution." In many countries, prosecutors have adopted a role of "people's defenders," appearing in the media and leaking case details to gain public support. This generates serious problems:

1. Influence on judicial decision: Judges may feel pressured to convict to avoid media criticism.

2. Violation of the presumption of innocence: Society assumes the accused's guilt before the trial.

3. Selective justice: Prosecutors prioritize cases with greater public impact, leaving others forgotten.

5. Solutions to Protect Justice from Media Spectacle

To prevent justice from becoming a media circus, it is essential to establish clear limits:

• Sanction information leaks: Judges, prosecutors, and lawyers who disclose case details before the trial should be penalized.

• Restrict media exposure of judges and prosecutors: Magistrates should limit their statements to what is strictly necessary.

• Regulate the presence of cameras in trials: Evaluate under what circumstances public broadcasting benefits or harms the impartiality of the process.

• Media education about the judicial system: Society must understand the difference between a criminal process and a media narrative.

Conclusion

As Ferrando Mantovani warned, the media coverage of trials has turned the criminal process into a spectacle, weakening judicial impartiality and eroding essential principles like the presumption of innocence. Justice should not be a vanity fair or a tool for political manipulation. If we want to preserve the rule of law, we must curb the spectacularization of the judicial system and restore its seriousness and independence.