When emotion replaces evidence in the Court of Public Opinion

 

IN today’s hyperconnected world, the court of public opinion often delivers its verdict long before the actual courts have had the opportunity to examine the evidence.

Social media has democratised public discourse, allowing citizens to comment on, scrutinise and debate issues of public interest.

While this has strengthened accountability in many ways, it has also exposed a troubling reality: public reactions are increasingly shaped by emotion, identity and personal bias rather than facts and reasoned analysis.

One of the most noticeable features of online discourse is the obsession with identity. Before discussing the facts of a case, many netizens immediately ask about the alleged offender’s “type”, often a coded reference to race, ethnicity or religion.

The implication is clear. Public reactions are frequently filtered through the lens of identity. If the alleged offender belongs to a group perceived as “other”, condemnation is often swift and uncompromising.

If the person belongs to one’s own community, excuses and justifications can be quick to follow.

This reflects a deeper and increasingly worrying trend of social polarisation. Rather than evaluating actions based on universal principles, many people interpret events through tribal loyalties.

(Image: Pexels/Aqtai)

Facts become secondary to identity. Wrongdoing is condemned or defended depending on who committed it rather than what was committed.

Such selective outrage undermines the principle of equality before the law and weakens social cohesion.

Religious identity can also shape public reactions. Individuals perceived to be pious or religious are often given the benefit of the doubt, even when serious allegations arise. Their public image as a “good person” can become a shield against scrutiny.

Supporters may rush to defend them, portraying criticism as an attack on religion itself rather than an examination of individual conduct.

This is a dangerous tendency. Morality cannot be measured solely through outward displays of religiosity. History has repeatedly shown that people from every background, profession and belief system are capable of wrongdoing.

Elevating individuals beyond criticism simply because they appear religious undermines accountability and risks silencing legitimate concerns.

Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in discussions surrounding sexual violence.

Cases involving sexual offences often attract an alarming degree of victim blaming. Rather than focusing on the alleged actions of the perpetrator, attention frequently shifts to the victim’s behaviour, clothing, lifestyle or personal choices.

Questions are asked about why the victim was in a particular location, why they trusted the accused or why they did not report the incident sooner.

Such reactions reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of how trauma affects individuals. Victims do not all respond in the same way, nor do they always behave according to public expectations.

Yet myths and stereotypes continue to influence public perception, often diminishing the seriousness of these offences while exposing victims to a second round of judgment and humiliation.

The consequences extend far beyond social media.

Public attitudes shape social norms. When victim blaming becomes normalised, victims become less likely to come forward. When identity determines guilt or innocence in the public mind, trust in institutions begins to erode.

(Image: Pexels/ Nguyễn Tiến Thịnh )

When emotion consistently overshadows evidence, society becomes more vulnerable to misinformation, prejudice and manipulation.

None of this is an argument against public discussion. Healthy debate remains essential in any democratic society.

However, meaningful discussion requires a degree of civic literacy that is often lacking in online spaces.

Citizens must be able to distinguish allegations from proven facts, recognise their own biases, understand the complexities of criminal investigations and appreciate the importance of due process.

More importantly, there is an urgent need for greater public education on issues such as sexual violence, cognitive bias, media literacy and critical thinking.

The ability to evaluate information objectively is no longer merely an academic skill. It is a civic necessity.

In an era where opinions can spread faster than facts, societies cannot afford to allow prejudice and emotion to become the primary drivers of public judgment.

The court of public opinion will always exist. The question is whether it will be guided by evidence, fairness and principle, or by identity, emotion and prejudice.

The answer will shape not only the quality of our public discourse, but also the kind of society we choose to become. 

The author is Dr Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid, who is a Criminologist and Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya.

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT.

- Focus Malaysia