The Judicial Trial Kidnapped by Public Opinion

【Abstract】Statistics shows that， in 2015， the number of people executed in Texas was the largest in the U.S.A.To a great extent， the reason consists in its judge selection system.This paper analyzes the reasons for and significance of the independence of judicial trial from the public opinion as well as reflects the problem in Chinas judicial system and gives some suggestions.

【Key words】Texas； public opinion； judicial trial； judicial independence

I. Introduction

Texas is always the runner-up in America， no matter from the perspective of area， population or GSP. But there is an aspect Texas tops the U.S.A， that is the number of people executed. According to the statistics， in 2015， a total of 28 criminals have been executed in the U.S.A.Among them， 13 in Texas， far more than the number in other populous state Why does Texas have the most people executed？Firstly， among the three most populous states， only Texas final judges are determined by the public voting.Although Texas municipal court judges are usually appointed by city authorities， all other judges are elected by partisan ballot.“Having received their partys nomination in the primary trial judges， such as J.P country judges and district， judges are elected through the general election for 4 year terms judges on the multimember appellate courts are elected for 6 years over lapping terms.

An inevitable defect of such mode consists in the influence of public opinion on the judges.”In well-published cases， a judge seeking reelection may be tempted to make a decision because its popular rather than just or legal.However， the people tend to be irrational.Plus， Texas has a conservative culture.So criminals are punished with severity.The balance of law is tilted.

II. The Effect of Public Opinion on Judicial Trial

A well-known and important case in American judicial history can illustrate the effect of public opinion on judges most clearly， that is Sam Sheppard v. Maxwell Case. He was a famous surgeon.In 1954， he was arrested for being suspected of murdering his pregnant wife.He claimed his wife was killed by an outsider who broke into， knocked him out， then killed his wife.After the case was published， it immediately aroused the attention of the public and media.Before arrest， relevant comments had overspread.Most believed he committed murder.But the trial judge didnt take measures to prevent the comments because the trial began two weeks before a hotly contested election. He wanted to please the people and be reelected.He didnt adopt any measure to ensure jury wouldnt be interrupted. Also， three months before trial， Sheppard was examined for more than 5 hours without counsel in a television three-day inquest conducted before an audience of several hundred in a gymnasium.At last， Sam Shepherd was sentenced guilty.Many years later， the Supreme Court retried it and the original sentence was overturned.Shepherd was released at last.The reason was that public and media unfair and irrational comments violated the defendants right to receive the just and equal trial.

Public opinion is of much significance to judges elected by the public.They judge the cases carefully and take everything into consideration， certainly considering in advance public response and acceptance， then they will adjust their decisions.When judges try their best to meet the public expectation of just trial to think in the public way and embody peoples wishes， between faith in law and submission to the public opinion， they are inclined to choose the latter.From the perspective of result， it seems to maintain the image of judicial justice， but， as a matter of fact， lead to the loss of inner values of the law.

References：

[1]Pillsbury，Samuel H.“Emotional justice：Moralizing the passions of criminal punishment.”Cornell L.Rev.74（1988）：655.

[2]Bing-chuan，Y.A.N.G.“Reflection on the Influence of Popular Indignation on Judicial Justice[J].”Journal of Xinyu University 2011（1）：017.

[3]De Tocqueville，Alexis.Democracy in America.Vol.10.Regnery Publishing，2003.

[4]Berenson，Steven K.“Public Lawyers，Private Values：Can， Should，andv Will Government Lawyers Serve the Public Interest？”Boston College Law Review 41.4（2000）：789.

[5]Ginter，Jaan.“Judicial Independence and/or Efficient Judicial Administration.”Juridica Intl 17（2010）：108.

[6]歐陽曙.法律解釋如何民主-論法律解釋民主化的不能與可能[J].上海政法學院學報：法治論叢，2015.30.3：12-18.

作者簡介：劉羽淳（1994-），女，漢族，天津人，文學碩士在讀，天津外國語大學研究生院英語語言文學專業(yè)，研究方向：美國社會與文化。