Don't Let the Algorithm Judge First

“On social media, a person can become a defendant within minutes. In a state governed by law, a person can only be declared guilty after going through a process of proof.”

These two realities now live side by side. The first moves according to algorithms, emotions, and the speed of information. The second proceeds on the basis of law, evidence, and procedure. The problem is that, in recent years, the first reality has often overtaken — even preceded — the second.

We live in an age when a video lasting a few seconds can shape the opinions of millions. Clips stripped of context, provocative headlines, or emotionally charged narratives can spread faster than any clarification. Before investigators complete their examination, before prosecutors draft charges, and even before judges open a trial, the digital space has delivered its own verdict.

This phenomenon is no longer merely a matter of social media ethics. It has developed into a genuine challenge to the existence of the rule of law.

On one hand, social media has brought great benefits to democracy. The public sphere has become more open. Society finds it easier to monitor the administration of the state. Allegations of abuse of authority, criminal offences, and poor public services can swiftly come to public attention. Not a few cases have ultimately received serious attention because members of the public had the courage to document an event and circulate it via digital platforms.

In that context, social media has become an effective instrument of social control.

However, social control has clear limits. When the digital space turns into a courtroom, when comments replace proof, and when the number of likes, shares, or views is taken as a measure of truth, that is when the rule of law begins to face a genuine threat.

Lately, the public has been presented with various phenomena revealing a strong demand for crime to be eradicated. Support for vigilante action, proposals to offer rewards for catching perpetrators, and pressure for the authorities to immediately name someone a suspect after a case goes viral all point to public unease about the effectiveness of law enforcement.

That unease must not be ignored. The state does indeed have a constitutional obligation to provide a sense of security and legal certainty to its citizens. When crime rises or the handling of cases is seen as sluggish, public criticism is entirely legitimate in a democratic state.

Yet criticism must not turn into pressure that sacrifices legal principles.

From its founding, Indonesia chose to be a state governed by law, not a state ruled by majority opinion. That choice is not merely a formulation in the constitution; it is a commitment that every act of law enforcement must be carried out on the basis of lawful authority, procedure, and proof.

No one may be convicted merely because of public pressure. Nor can anyone be acquitted merely because they hold influence or popularity. All citizens stand equal before the law.

This is where the importance of the presumption of innocence lies. Regrettably, this principle is often misinterpreted as a form of protection for criminals. In fact, the principle protects every citizen from falling victim to errors in the legal process. Today it may be someone else who is the target of public judgment. Tomorrow, it is entirely possible that we ourselves, or those closest to us, could face the same fate.

Legal history proves that public opinion is not always identical with the truth. Many people have lost their good name, their livelihood, and even their future because of social judgement, only to be later declared innocent by a court. Conversely, there are also cases initially thought simple which, once tested through evidence, reveal facts far more complex.

For this reason, law enforcement agencies face an increasingly heavy burden. They are expected to work quickly to answer society’s hopes, yet at the same time must maintain objectivity and independence. The professionalism of the authorities is not measured by their ability to follow the tide of opinion, but by their courage to stand firmly on the law when public pressure is at its peak.

The mass media also plays a vital role. Amid the flood of digital information, the press cannot be satisfied with merely being the fastest conveyor of information. The press must remain an institution that carries out verification, presents balance, and safeguards accuracy. In a state governed by law, speed must never triumph over truth.

Equally important is building public legal awareness. Freedom of expression is a constitutional right, but every right is accompanied by responsibility. Voicing criticism is part of democracy. However, spreading unverified information, constructing conclusions from fragments of facts, or judging someone before the legal process has concluded is not a form of participation that strengthens democracy.

On the contrary, such actions can wound justice.

In an era of increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence and algorithms, the greatest challenge to law enforcement is not only the evolution of criminal methods. A more fundamental challenge is ensuring that technology does not displace legal principles built over decades. Algorithms can indeed determine what information the public sees most. But algorithms were never designed to determine who is guilty.

That task remains in the hands of the law.

That is why building society’s legal literacy is just as important as strengthening law enforcement institutions. The public needs to understand that legal processes take time, that proof requires rigour, and that justice cannot be measured by the volume of comments on social media.

In the end, the quality of a state governed by law is not determined by how quickly it follows the currents of virality. The quality of the rule of law is visible precisely in its capacity to preserve its independence when opinion pressure is at its height. The law must indeed listen to the voice of the people, but the law must not lose the courage to remain grounded in facts.

Virality can awaken public attention. Opinion can foster oversight. But only the law can deliver justice.

For when algorithms are trusted more than the legal process, what is at stake is not merely legal certainty, but the very future of Indonesia as a state governed by law.

Wallahu a’lam bishawab.

Januar Solehuddin is an advocate, legal practitioner, and non-judge mediator. He is a former head of the Bandung Regency Election Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) for the 2018-2023 term.