Independent adjudication under media supervision is a paradox, says Jing Hanchao, vice-president of Supreme People's Court, in a recent article in People's Court Daily.

Explaining the relationship between justice and the media, he says that in recent times, media supervision has intervened in judicial adjudication.

I agree with Jing that the media sometimes crosses the line when it comes to reporting on legal cases. Some media reports favor one side (or the other), and thus fail to maintain neutrality.

Some journalists often make improper comments during trials, and even jump to conclusions without waiting for the courts to pass verdict. At times, the media do intervene in judicial adjudication, making a mockery of judicial fairness.

Western societies do not allow "trial by media". For example, in the United Kingdom no one is allowed to comment on a case until a court has passed the verdict. Even those disclosing factual details of a case before the trial is over will face charges of contempt of court.

But the situation is different in China for the principle to work, not because our media have an overwhelming influence on judicial adjudication but because of the inherent problems with our legal system.

Recently, the media have been overactive while reporting on controversial cases. Take the case of Xu Ting as an example.

The media reported that a young man had been sentenced to life for withdrawing a huge amount of money from another person's account from an out-of-order ATM.

The media coverage sparked a heated public debate on the fairness of justice, and eventually forced the judgment to be amended.

The reality is that the public thinks the advantages of "trial by media" far overweigh the disadvantages. Although media coverage may sometimes disturb the normal procedure of judicial adjudication, in many cases media supervision has helped courts to deliver fair justice. Some people even believe that it's hard to get judicial justice without media supervision.

In a society where it's not rare to see judicial unfairness - because of corruption or abuse of power - it hardly comes as a surprise that people have lost confidence in the judiciary and seek media supervision to get justice.

People resort to channels outside the judicial system, such as petitions, violence and media supervision, to protect themselves or to get justice.

Under such circumstances, people will take it for granted that the media have the right to report anything on legal cases. Some even regard "trial by media" as justified.

The flip side is that the media always put unnecessary pressure on judicial adjudication by at times challenging fair trials and verdicts of even upright judges.

It's high time we reflected upon the relationship between the media and justice. Though we should not support "trial by media", it would be unfair to blame the media alone for the present state of affairs.

If we establish a foolproof judicial system that guarantees judicial fairness, the public will not seek the help of the media to see justice being delivered.

Besides, the judicial system should have the right to punish the media for improper coverage of legal cases only when it becomes trustworthy itself.

If we don't want people to believe in the legitimacy of "trial by media", we have to raise the credibility of our judicial system first.

The author is a prosecutor in Ganzhou, Jiangxi province.

(China Daily 01/11/2010 page9)