當媒體報導涉入情緒性的描述方式時，除了可能誤導一般社會大眾的觀感外，職司審判或偵查事務的司法官是否亦可能受到影響？過去國內的相關研究多僅限於從法理上探討犯罪新聞報導的相關法律問題或著重於犯罪新聞內容的文本分析，而本研究則透過實證的問卷調查法，探討犯罪新聞描述手法與閱聽人間的關係，並以司法官作為分析單位，以期瞭解犯罪新聞對於司法審判的影響。研究結果發現：一、整體而言，針對犯罪嫌疑人的報導比針對被害人的報導對於司法官吏具影響力。二、整體而言，媒體使用負面字眼如惡劣、活該等手法比使用可憐、無辜等字眼，對司法官吏具影響力。三、對於描述犯罪嫌疑人惡劣行徑之報導對於司法官具有最大影響力，其次為有關被害人可憐的描述，亦即在司法官心目中，犯罪嫌疑人或被害人之形象是有其差異性；易言之，符合司法官本身印象與認知之報導對其最具說服力。四、司法官普遍認為屬於外團體的一般民眾最容易受到犯罪新聞報導描述手法的影響，而與其屬於同一內團體的司法官同事次之，自己則最不容易受到媒體的影響；且司法官與外團體問之認知差距亦顯著的大於其與內團體問之認知差距，均顯示媒體報導亦對於司法官產生顯著的第三人效果認知。五、司法官中，又以職司審判事務的法官比起職司偵查事務的檢察官具有更顯著的第三人效果認知。

As media reports wade into the portrayal of morals, does the influence of any erroneous reporting go beyond the sphere of just affecting the public's perceptions of events? Can these reports also affect the judicial or investigative work of judges and prosecutors? Past domestic research regarding this matter, from a legal perspective, has been mostly confined to analyzing problems related to crime reporting or has analyzed the content of these reports. However, the research done here is conducted through empirical survey, discussing how prosecutors and judges perceive the influence of crime reporting on readers, using prosecutors and judges as the unit of analysis in order to understand how the crime reporting may influence their decisions. The results of this research show:1 As a whole, articles focusing on detailing suspects are more influential than articles focusing on victims.2 As a whole, the media which tend to word its articles negatively, using words like “disgusting”,“toget what one deserves”, etc. are more effective than those use words like “poor”,“innocent”.3 The description of iniquity of the suspect is the most influential to the judges and prosecutors; second is the description of wretchedness of the victim. That is especially true when the judicial officials have had prepossession of the suspect and the victim. In other words, the most persuasive reporting is that conforms to the judicial officials' preconceived images and perception of the suspect and the victim.4 The judges and prosecutors generally think that the pubic outside the judicial system is the most likely to be influenced by the descriptive methods of crime reporting; the next are the colleagues working within the similar judicial system. As to the judges and prosecutors themselves are the least likely to be influenced. Moreover, the cognitive gap between the judicial officials and the public is much wider than that between judicial workers within the similar judicial system. Above-mentioned observations all reveal how reports from the media cause obvious third-person perception to the judges and the prosecutors.5 Third-person perception has a stronger influence on judges than on prosecutors.