The Limits of"Openness for Justice"in Live Broadcasts of Court Hearing:Analyzing the Boundaries of the Application of Panopsticism
In judicial practice,live broadcasts of court hearing are considered to improve fairness at trials.Howev-er,existing researches,whether in favor of or against this view,basically ignore analyses of the practice of unfair trials.In fact,most of them only study this problem from live broadcasts of court hearing's institutional function.In practice,unfair trials can be divided into two types:ability type and integrity type.Among them,when judges'case handling ability is not enough to fully grasp individual complex cases,unfair trials of abili-ty type will appear.In this case,it is hard to solve such unfair trials because live broadcasts of court hearing do little to improve judges'abilities.At the same time,due to most unfair trials of integrity type occur outside the court hearing process,it is also difficult to find and reduce such injustices in live broadcasts.What's more,implementers of unfair trials frequently treat the live broadcast as a show to create their legitimacy.The chilling effect caused by live broadcasts of court hearing also reduces the initiative of trial participants and make it more difficult for judges to hear cases.To sum up,live broadcasts of court hearing hardly can im-prove fairness at trials.This also means that the panopsticism behind them has a boundary of effectiveness.
Live Broadcasts of Court HearingUnfair TrialsChilling EffectPanopsticismJudges'Abilities
万方数据
