Don't Let the Algorithm Judge First

On social media, a person can become a defendant in a matter of minutes. In a state governed by law, a person can only be declared guilty after a process of verification. These two realities now coexist. The first moves according to algorithms, emotion, and the speed of information. The second proceeds based on law, evidence, and procedure. The problem is, in recent years, the first reality has often overtaken, and even pre-empted, the second. We live in an era where a video lasting a few seconds can shape the opinions of millions. A clip devoid of context, a provocative headline, or an emotionally charged narrative can spread faster than any clarification. Before an investigator completes an examination, before a prosecutor drafts an indictment, and even before a judge opens a trial, the digital sphere has already delivered its own verdict. This phenomenon is no longer merely an issue of social media ethics. It has evolved into a real challenge to the existence of the rule of law. On one hand, social media has provided significant benefits to democracy. The public sphere has become more open. Society can more easily oversee the administration of the state. Allegations of abuse of authority, criminal acts, or poor public services can quickly come to light. Many cases have gained serious attention because citizens were brave enough to document an event and disseminate it through digital platforms. In this context, social media has become an effective instrument of social control. However, social control has clear boundaries. When the digital space turns into a courtroom, when comments replace evidence, and when the number of likes, shares, or views is considered a measure of truth, the rule of law faces a genuine threat. Recently, the public has witnessed phenomena that demonstrate a high demand for crime eradication. Support for vigilante justice, proposals to reward those who catch criminals, and pressure on authorities to immediately name someone a suspect after a case goes viral all reflect public anxiety over the effectiveness of law enforcement. This anxiety must not be ignored. The state has a constitutional obligation to provide a sense of security and legal certainty to the community. When crime rates rise or case handling is perceived as slow, public criticism is legitimate in a democracy. However, criticism must not turn into pressure that sacrifices legal principles. Indonesia has chosen to be a state governed by law, not by the opinion of the majority. This choice is not merely a constitutional formulation but a commitment that every act of law enforcement must be carried out based on legitimate authority, procedure, and evidence. No one should be punished solely because of public pressure. Likewise, no one should be acquitted merely because of influence or popularity. All citizens are equal before the law. This is where the importance of the presumption of innocence lies. Unfortunately, this principle is often misinterpreted as a form of protection for criminals. In reality, it is a protection for every citizen against the miscarriage of justice. Today, someone else may be the target of public judgement. Tomorrow, it is not impossible that we or those closest to us could experience the same thing. Legal history proves that public opinion is not always synonymous with the truth. Many people have lost their good name, their jobs, and even their futures due to social condemnation, only to later be declared innocent by a court. Conversely, there are cases initially considered simple that, after thorough examination, revealed far more complex facts. For this reason, law enforcement officers face an increasingly heavy burden. They are demanded to work quickly to meet public expectations, yet simultaneously must maintain objectivity and independence. The professionalism of an officer is not measured by their ability to follow the current of opinion, but by their courage to stand firm on the law when public pressure is at its peak. The mass media also plays a crucial role. Amid the flood of digital information, the press cannot merely be the fastest conveyor of information. The press must remain an institution that verifies, provides balance, and maintains accuracy. In a state of law, speed must not defeat truth. Finally, building public legal literacy is just as important as strengthening law enforcement institutions. The public needs to understand that the legal process requires time, that evidence requires scrutiny, and that justice cannot be measured by the number of comments on social media. Ultimately, the quality of a state governed by law is determined not only by the integrity of its judges and prosecutors but also by the patience of its citizens in allowing the law to work.