Abstract

Social networks have transformed public discussions, including criminal law, but they have also led to trivialized debates, which may not foster informed political opinions. A notable example is the La Manada case, where public outrage, fueled by social media, pressured legal reforms in Spain. This raises the question: Do social media protests impact legislative and judicial decisions? My research explores how polarization on social media influences public opinion in criminal justice debates. While it's unclear whether we live in a more polarized world, the perception of increased polarization is prevalent, and social media may be amplifying it. I conducted a systematic review of the literature on polarization in social networks, focusing on empirical studies from the last five years. I found that there is no consensus on how polarization is defined or measured. Some studies view polarization as a consequence of social media dynamics, while others suggest it could be a cause. Common methodologies for measuring polarization include surveys, sentiment analysis, and thematic modeling. Preliminary results show a growing body of research, particularly from psychology and computer science. However, the lack of clear definitions and methodologies poses challenges for comparison. My next step is to refine the definition of polarization and analyze case studies to identify the factors influencing polarization in criminal justice debates online.

Biography

Sara Sampayo Sande has a degree in criminology from the University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. She has specialised in intervention with victims and juvenile offenders and in the geodramatic analysis of crime through two master's degrees at the Miguel Hernández University of Elche. She is currently a PhD student at the same university, analysing the phenomenon of the polarization in social networks and its impact on criminal policy.