Become a Member for $9.99/month

When reporting on the achievements of Việt Nam’s judiciary from 2021–2026, Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court Lê Minh Trí made a significant declaration. At the 10th session of the 15th National Assembly on the afternoon of October 20, he stated:

“Trials have been conducted with strict fairness, ensuring the right person, the right crime, and in accordance with the law; no cases of wrongful conviction have yet been detected.” [1]

Justice "Not Yet Detected” The head of the judiciary was, indeed, tactful in his choice of words—using “not yet detected” instead of “none” when referring to wrongful convictions. “Not yet detected” implies that such cases may exist, only that they have not been identified—or perhaps not been acknowledged.

As for the assertions that trials have been “conducted with fairness, ensuring the right person and the right crime,” what do they truly mean? Naturally, when a wrongful conviction has not been recognized as wrongful, every stage—from investigation to prosecution—will still be regarded as “proper.”

Frankly speaking, the Chief Justice may not have been reporting anything untrue; his statement could be perfectly accurate from the perspective of those within the judiciary itself. Yet, should they not also look beyond their own view—to see what the public, the citizens, are witnessing and thinking about their courts?

It is telling that just one day after the Chief Justice’s declaration, National Assembly delegate Lê Hữu Trí, deputy head of the Khánh Hòa delegation, offered a very different perspective on the state of justice in recent years. [2]

Regarding the supposed “strictness” and “legality” of judicial proceedings, the delegate observed:

“Many cases are handled one way in the first instance, another way on appeal, and yet differently at higher levels. Some citizens reach the end of the road without ever finding the truth.” As the delegate aptly put it, the phenomenon of verdicts being repeatedly altered at different stages of trial—or across multiple court levels—is hardly unfamiliar in recent years.

Although such inconsistency may appear troubling, it must be acknowledged that this is, in fact, a normal feature of any judicial system. The very purpose of appellate and cassation procedures is to provide opportunities for review and correction of earlier judgments.

Indeed, changes in rulings from one trial to another can even be seen as a positive sign—if they stem from the justice system’s own ability to re-examine evidence, uncover new facts, or recognize flaws in previous decisions.

Yet, recent events reveal a different reality: the revisions of verdicts and the reopening of cases have not stemmed from the authorities’ own initiative, but rather from the pressure of public opinion. It is the people and the press who uncover inconsistencies and hidden injustices, who speak out collectively—only then do the relevant institutions begin to reexamine the matter.

It would not be an exaggeration to call this situation justice that must wait for public opinion.

Justice by Public Outcry The phrase “justice that must wait for public opinion” reflects a troubling reality—that proper verdicts are often reached only after the media and the public have intervened. In recent years, this situation has become common, appearing not only in complex or high-profile cases but in minor ones as well.

Consider a few recent examples that have drawn public attention.

In one case, a 14-year-old schoolgirl in Trà Ôn District, Vĩnh Long Province, was run over and killed by a truck driver in September 2024. On Dec. 26, 2024, the district-level People’s Procuracy issued a decision not to prosecute, reasoning that “the person who committed the socially dangerous act has died.” The person named in this conclusion was the deceased teenage girl herself. [3]

After the family’s repeated objections, the Trà Ôn District People’s Procuracy annulled its earlier decision on Jan. 17, 2025. Yet, only a few days later, the Trà Ôn District Police once again decided not to open a criminal case, this time on the grounds that “no criminal act had occurred.”

The girl’s father filed multiple complaints, all of which were rejected. In deep despair, on April 28, 2025, he shot and killed the truck driver who had run over his daughter, before taking his own life.

The father’s gunshot set off a wave of media coverage and public outrage, forcing authorities to revisit a case that both the Procuracy and District Police had previously dismissed. A case that should have long been forgotten is now, thanks to public outcry, still under investigation and review.

In another case, on Aug. 8, 2025, a first-instance court sentenced a farmer to six years in prison for violating regulations on the protection of endangered and rare species under Clause 2, Article 244 of the Penal Code. The reason: he had allegedly illegally raised and traded white pheasants. [4]

After journalists and the public detected troubling inconsistencies in the verdict—and following persistent appeals from the farmer’s family—the case drew widespread media attention, eventually reaching central-level state agencies. As a result, the case was re-examined. On October 17, during the appellate hearing, the Hưng Yên Provincial People’s Procuracy recommended amending the original verdict and exempting the farmer from criminal liability.

The media has also recently helped save a small family from collapse. The story began in July 2024, when a young wife went to register the birth of her child. Police discovered that she had given birth to her first child before turning 16. From that moment, the husband was prosecuted for having sexual relations with a minor—even though the “minor” was his own wife. [5]

In March 2025, the husband was sentenced to three years and six months in prison. According to the case file, the “victim” was his wife. This verdict, however, victimized her a second time: her husband and the family’s main breadwinner was imprisoned, leaving her to raise their children alone.

Once again, it took public pressure and media intervention, combined with the young couple’s persistent appeals, for justice to prevail. On Sept. 24, 2025, the Khánh Hòa Provincial People’s Court issued a decision exempting the husband from serving his prison sentence.

The stories recounted above, of course, do not represent the entirety of the reality behind what can be called “justice that must wait for public opinion.”

Must Justice Always Wait for Public Opinion? In truth, public opinion is a double-edged sword: on one hand, it can help exonerate individuals who have been wrongfully convicted; on the other, public pressure can also unintentionally condemn the innocent. Reality has already shown this to be true.

A well-known example is the case of Amanda Knox, who was wrongly convicted of murder. According to Knox, one key reason for her wrongful conviction was the media’s success in portraying her as a monstrous killer. [6] This public narrative heavily biased the authorities’ perception of her, undermining the impartiality and objectivity of both the investigation and the trial.

A doctoral dissertation in journalism by Trần Như Mai also highlighted the twofold role of the media: on one hand, it helps overturn wrongful convictions and reduce miscarriages of justice; on the other, it can contribute to the spread of misinformation, disrupt investigations, and even increase the rate of wrongful convictions. [7]

This conclusion aligns with a study published in the Texas Law Review, which examined the impact of social media on both the number of wrongful convictions and the accuracy of criminal investigations and trials. [8]

Therefore, public opinion cannot be regarded as a savior, nor can it replace the role of the judiciary. The court system must continue to exist—and must fulfill its duty to uphold and deliver justice rightfully and completely.

But the current reality has left many citizens tormented by a painful question: when the courts have become places that merely revise verdicts instead of delivering them with care, can the people still place their trust in the judges?

Lê Hữu Trí from the Khánh Hòa delegation also spoke bluntly about this erosion of public trust in the judiciary: [9]

“In the past, people avoided litigation because it was time-consuming and costly. But now, even though the process has been streamlined, many still do not believe that going to court can truly protect their rights. The reason lies in procedures that remain confusing and lack transparency.” Regaining the People’s Trust Delegate Trí’s recent remarks are far from the only criticism directed at Việt Nam’s judiciary.

A 2024 study led by Trần Ngọc Đường, former Deputy Head of the Office of the National Assembly, and published in the Vietnam Journal of Legal Sciences, identified the judiciary’s persistent shortcomings as stemming from “an incomplete, shallow, and unsystematic theoretical understanding of judicial power, its exercise, and especially the independence of the courts in adjudication […] along with an underdeveloped institutional framework to ensure such independence.” [10]

In addition, the same study noted that the weak professional capacity of judicial personnel, coupled with the absence of effective sanctions to prevent interference by agencies, organizations, or individuals in judicial proceedings, remains among the most serious and lingering flaws within the system. [11]

Accordingly, the lack of independence of the judiciary as a whole—and particularly the absence of independence in judicial adjudication—combined with the limited professional competence of judicial personnel, stands among the major deficiencies of Việt Nam’s justice system today.

Professor Nguyễn Đăng Dung, in his Textbook on the Theory and Law of Human Rights, once observed that “human rights and freedoms are inseparably linked to the judicial activities of the courts.” [12] Thus, in a state where the court system proves weak, the rights and freedoms of the people are inevitably placed in serious jeopardy.

Moreover, the weakness of the judiciary is also a symptom of the erosion of state power—or even the instability of the institutional foundation itself. As Professor Dung wrote:

“The courts are the most vivid embodiment of justice, social fairness, democracy, and transparency. They directly manifest state power through the independent application of the law. For this reason, the courts represent the most concentrated expression of the rule of law—the very essence of a law-governed state. Citizens and society assess the nature, effectiveness, and legitimacy of the state primarily through their assessment of the organization and functioning of the judiciary, with the courts at its center.” [13] As long as the weaknesses of the judiciary remain unaddressed, the monument of justice will never stand in the hearts of the people. For they see clearly this truth: Is not public opinion closer to justice than state authority itself? If pleading one’s case in the press or on social media proves easier than seeking justice in court, then why go through the ordeal of litigation—only to meet with misfortune?

Moreover, as long as justice fails to reside within the courts, the very foundation of the state cannot remain stable, for when the people lose faith, they will inevitably withdraw their support.

Returning to the Chief Justice’s declaration, one cannot help but ponder once more: So then, was it truly that there have been no wrongful convictions—or merely that none have yet been “detected”?

Bối Thủy wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on Oct. 28, 2025. The Vietnamese Magazine has the copyright for the English version of this article.

References: 1. Văn Kiên. (2025, October 20). Chánh án TAND Tối cao: Cả nhiệm kỳ, chưa phát hiện trường hợp kết án oan người vô tội. Báo Điện Tử Tiền Phong . https://tienphong.vn/chanh-an-tand-toi-cao-ca-nhiem-ky-chua-phat-hien-truong-hop-ket-an-oan-nguoi-vo-toi-post1788889.tpo

2. Hằng Nguyễn. (2025, October 21). Nâng cao vai trò giám sát của Quốc hội để không còn chuyện “kêu oan 30 năm.” Báo Điện Tử Dân Trí . https://dantri.com.vn/thoi-su/nang-cao-vai-tro-giam-sat-cua-quoc-hoi-de-khong-con-chuyen-keu-oan-30-nam-20251021171324826.htm

3. Ca Linh. (2025, October 14). Toàn cảnh vụ tai nạn giao thông làm nữ sinh tử vong ở Vĩnh Long. Báo Người Lao Động Online . https://nld.com.vn/toan-canh-vu-tai-nan-giao-thong-lam-nu-sinh-tu-vong-o-vinh-long-196251014095159415.htm

4. Tr.Đức. (2025, October 17). Vụ án gà lôi trắng: Bị cáo Thái Khắc Thành được thả tự do ngay tại toà. Báo Người Lao Động Online . https://nld.com.vn/vu-an-ga-loi-trang-bi-cao-thai-khac-thanh-duoc-tha-tu-do-ngay-tai-toa-196251017122444011.htm

5. Song Mai. (2025, October 16). VKSND Tối cao rút kinh nghiệm việc giải quyết vụ chồng giao cấu với vợ khi vợ chưa đủ 16 tuổi. Báo Pháp Luật TP. Hồ Chí Minh . https://plo.vn/vksnd-toi-cao-rut-kinh-nghiem-viec-giai-quyet-vu-chong-giao-cau-voi-vo-khi-vo-chua-du-16-tuoi-post875805.html

6. Giuffrida, A. (2019, June 15). Amanda Knox says media depicted her as man-eating murderer. The Guardian . https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/15/amanda-knox-accuses-media-of-depicting-her-as-maneating-murderer

7. Trần Như Mai. (2022). Báo chí với vấn đề án oan sai hiện nay . Tóm tắt luận án tiến sĩ Báo chí học. Trường Đại học Khoa học Xã hội và Nhân văn – Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội.

8. Capobianco, J. M. (2020, November 19). Has social media destroyed a federal rule? The false promise of transfer to cure prejudice in the social media era | Texas Law Review . Retrieved from https://texaslawreview.org/has-social-media-destroyed-a-federal-rule-the-false-promise-of-transfer-to-cure-prejudice-in-the-social-media-era/

9. Hằng Nguyễn. (2025, October 21). Nâng cao vai trò giám sát của Quốc hội để không còn chuyện “kêu oan 30 năm.” Báo Điện Tử Dân Trí . https://dantri.com.vn/thoi-su/nang-cao-vai-tro-giam-sat-cua-quoc-hoi-de-khong-con-chuyen-keu-oan-30-nam-20251021171324826.htm

10. Trần Ngọc Đường và cộng sự. (2024). Đổi mới tổ chức và hoạt động thực hiện quyền tư pháp trong xây dựng nhà nước pháp quyền xã hội chủ nghĩa Việt Nam. Tạp chí Khoa học Pháp lý Việt Nam , Số 02 (174)/2024, tr. 57.