The Court of Public Opinion is the Modern-Day Lynch Mob
In the wake of Bryan Kohberger’s arrest in connection to the high-profile, quadruple murder that took place in Moscow, Idaho late last November, the number of subreddits, news reports, and online discussions has erupted.
Most comments and discussions revolve around Kohberger’s assumed guilt despite nothing more than circumstantial evidence being presented by law enforcement. Due to rulings issued by the presiding judge, a gag order has been put in place, resulting in the only detailed information coming from a released probable cause affidavit and no updates from local police, attorneys, or the prosecution/defense.
It’s important to recognize that a probably cause affidavit is not direct evidence itself. The document simply lists what the arresting offer claims is evidence required to make an arrest. The validity of the evidence hasn’t been confirmed or vetted prior to submission. Law enforcement officers are simply required to submit this affidavit when an arrest warrant isn’t initially present.
Probable Cause ≠ Proof
During an investigation, law enforcement may collect evidence that indicates the identity of the perpetrator. If law enforcement has collected enough evidence to solidly believe you played a role in a crime, they can issue a warrant for your arrest. Reasonable suspicion, on the other hand, is not enough to justify an arrest warrant.
Probable cause requires concrete evidence, whereas suspicion is based on informed judgment.
Battling the Court of Public Opinion
Regardless of what legal evidence exists, speculation and outright vilification from passionate online spectators persists. During early stages of a highly publicized and captivating investigation, slow developments in the case can often result in conspiracy theories and dogpiling once anything new is released. No matter how insignificant or speculative the update may be, the public grabs hold and extracts whatever they can to fit or be shaped to match their narrative.
A prime example of this would be the unfounded claims that circulated (primarily on social network sites like TikTok), painting a University of Idaho professor as the one responsible for the murders. Additionally, an untold number of speculations arose that directed blame to close friends and acquaintances of the victims. These claims were often easily debunked by the victims’ close friends, family, and the close-knit Vandal community.
The court of public opinion isn’t often held responsible for the distress and turmoil that it’s actions can cause. That’s not a good thing. If the court of public opinion isn’t challenged, it has the potential to spiral out of control, and unfortunately we’ve seen it happen before.
Lynch Mobs Don’t Care About Guilt or Innocence
A disappointing aspect of American history features the countless extrajudicial killings and punishments of alleged transgressors of a “crime” or perceived offense. Within the US, the targets of lynching attackers were typically selected based on race or economic status.
Many lynchings followed sexual assault, rape, or murder accusations.When the public didn’t believe the punishment (or lack thereof) fit the alleged crime, vigilante justice aimed to fill the gap.
Lynching attacks ranged from hangings and being dragged behind a car, to burning and being thrown from a bridge.
According to historians, the rise of post-Civil War lynchings stemmed from a lack of public confidence in the justice system’s due process.
Modern-Day Lynch Mobs Find a Home Online
Whether it’s due to the increased anonymity or a sense of confidence that is gained when engaging in online discussions, people aren’t afraid to share how they feel. And this is apparent when it comes to discussions around crime suspects.
If you look through the comments on news articles or discussion threads, you’re bound to find few people highlighting the importance of “innocent until proven guilty” surrounded by swarms of commenters stating things such as:
- WHY ARE WE GIVING HIM OPTIONS!?! He gave up his rights when he MURDERED those kids!”
- Hope his friends in prison welcome him to there cell! I never wanted so much pain to someone but I hope he gets his!
- They should turn him over to the parents of the victims and let them give him a sentence of their choice. 😏😎
- He chose to kill them in their sleep because he is a weak coward and attacking people made him feel powerful.
- I don’t think he was thinking about the victims when he chose how to kill them.
- Could you imagine if he is really innocent? 😂 I mean, he already had his fair share in life by being bullied and so on. What would be his reaction, as an innocent man, to see so many people discuss his “crazy” eyes, him being evil looking maniac, unattractive, Ted Bundy No 2 etc. Although based on PCA, I think he’s the guy.
- DNA dont lie baby. He is guilty. 🧬
While these comments and similar behavior don’t rise to the brutality of those experienced by traditional lynching victims, It’s not a hard comparison to make between the modern day court of public opinion and post-Civil War America.
I believe most people are frustrated by the due process aspect of our modern justice system. The divide between legal innocence and public perception of innocence is repeatedly highlighted in trials such as Casey Anthony, being found innocent in the death of her daughter, and OJ Simpson not being charged in the death of his ex-wife and her partner. These controversial decisions continue to be discussed and hotly debated to this day. This frustration isn’t limited to cases that have already concluded, but can be seen in how people act towards still waiting for their day in court.
By following the historical trends, it’s not that difficult to see how the online court of public opinion could easily evolve to also become a real-world executioner based solely on public opinion.
