Response to sensational cases and public confidence in the judiciary

The recent tragic rape and murder of a young girl is not the first incident involving a child victim to attract national attention and go viral on social media. Only last year, the country was shaken by a similar case. Sadly, such incidents are not uncommon. What differs is not the gravity of the crime, the pain endured by the victim, or the devastation suffered by the family, but rather the level of public attention and social media outrage they receive.

Not every child rape or murder receives equal coverage or generates nationwide protests. Yet for every victim, the suffering is equally horrific. The selective public response to such crimes reveals a troubling pattern in our society and, more importantly, within our justice system. In previous high-profile cases, we have witnessed law enforcement agencies and even the judiciary taking unusually prompt action in response to public pressure and viral social media campaigns.

Over the past week alone, there were reportedly several similar incidents across the country. This particular case became a social media sensation and the prime minister personally visited her family, expressed condolences, and promised speedy justice.

Such gestures are compassionate and reassuring, but there is the danger of selective response damaging public confidence in the judiciary. Justice should not depend on whether a case trends online or captures public emotion. Courts are meant to deliver justice impartially, regardless of media attention.

The growing mistrust in the judicial system is already visible. In this particular case, angry crowds gathered outside the police station demanding that the accused be handed over to them because they believed the courts would fail to deliver justice. Her father himself stated that he is no longer demanding justice because he does not believe the state is capable of ensuring it. This mentality reflects a deep erosion of faith in state institutions.

Although courts often respond to sensational crimes with speedy trials and death sentences, these measures rarely create lasting deterrence. Bangladesh’s lengthy judicial process means that even when trial courts deliver swift verdicts, it can take years for death references to be confirmed by higher courts. As a result, the public rarely witnesses the actual execution of justice. Most sensational Biswajit murder, BUET Abrar or Feni’s Nusrat murder case judgments all are yet to be executed, despite huge outrage at that time.

Landmark judgments serve as meaningful precedents and deterrents for future offenders. The purpose of punishment is not only to penalise the offender but also to send a clear message to society that such crimes will not be tolerated. Populist responses to viral incidents may temporarily satisfy public anger, but they do little to reduce the recurrence of similar crimes.

No country can completely eliminate crime. However, many Western jurisdictions have successfully reduced certain categories of offences through strong judicial precedents and effective enforcement.

One well-known Australian example illustrates this point. An Australian woman, Mrs Melchoir, underwent sterilisation surgery performed by a gynaecologist, Dr Cattanach, after deciding she did not want more children. Despite the operation, she later became pregnant again due to medical negligence. Mrs Melchoir sued the doctor, arguing that she was neither mentally nor financially prepared to raise another child at the age of 43.
In a landmark judgment, the High Court of Australia ruled that the doctor was responsible for the costs of raising the child until the age of 18. The decision sent a powerful message regarding medical negligence. Since the ruling became an important legal precedent, medical professionals across Australia have become significantly more cautious in performing similar procedures. The judgment was widely discussed in the media, academia, and professional circles, helping to create awareness and prevent similar negligence.

Another famous example comes from the United States. Anyone who has visited Western countries may have noticed that coffee is usually served at a relatively mild temperature compared to South Asia. This practice originated from a landmark lawsuit in 1994.

Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, accidentally spilled a cup of McDonald’s coffee on herself and suffered severe third-degree burns. She sued McDonald’s, arguing that the coffee had been served at an unreasonably high temperature. The jury awarded her 2.8 million in compensation.

The impact of that judgment extended far beyond one individual case. McDonald’s, followed by many other businesses worldwide, reduced the temperature at which coffee was served. Today, customers who want extremely hot coffee are often specifically warned about the risks. A single judgment reshaped corporate practices and public safety standards.

Bangladesh’s judiciary must also strive to produce landmark judgments that create genuine social impact and deterrence. Delivering verdicts alone is not enough; effective enforcement and public awareness are equally important. The government, media, and civil society should actively circulate important judicial decisions so that people understand the legal consequences of such crimes.

Child rape remains alarmingly prevalent in Bangladesh, and many incidents never even reach the authorities. Instead of selectively responding to only those cases that become media sensations, the state must adopt a consistent and collective approach to combating sexual violence against children.

Alongside judicial action, the legislature must also take stronger action. Laws relating to child rape should be made stricter, with severe and certain punishment for offenders. Equally important is widespread public awareness through media campaigns, education, and community engagement.

The harsh reality is that within a week, society may forget the recent case discussed here, just as it forgot many victims before her, until another tragic incident once again dominates social media. This cycle of temporary outrage and selective attention cannot continue. Justice should not depend on virality. Every victim deserves equal protection, equal attention, and equal justice.

* The author is an adjunct law faculty at University of New South Wales, Sydney.
* The views expressed here are the author's own