Proving Domestic Violence Using Social Media Posting As Evidence: A Comparison between Common Law and Civil Law Systems

The digital transformation of communication has revolutionized evidentiary practices, particularly in the prosecution of domestic violence. Social media postings—ranging from text messages and photographs to videos and digital comments—have become critical forms of evidence revealing coercive control, intimidation, and abuse. This paper examines the admissibility, authentication, and probative value of social media evidence in Malaysia and Indonesia, representing the common law and civil law traditions respectively. Drawing from Malaysia’s Domestic Violence Act 1994 and Evidence Act 1950, and Indonesia’s Law No. 23 of 2004 on the Elimination of Domestic Violence (PKDRT) and ITE Law (UU No. 11/2008 jo UU No. 19/2016), the study analyzes how courts navigate questions of digital authorship, privacy, and forensic reliability. Integrating trauma-informed adjudication and feminist jurisprudence, this paper argues that while Malaysia’s common law system offers interpretive flexibility, Indonesia’s codified evidentiary framework ensures procedural predictability. Drawing on comparative legal analysis, the study concludes that authentication and forensic preservation are indispensable for justice and proposes a harmonization of evidentiary standards for social media in domestic violence cases between the common law and civil law systems.

social media, digital evidence, domestic violence

1. Adams, Richard, Hobbs, Val & Mann, Graham (2013). The Advanced Data Acquisition Model (ADAM): A Process Model for Digital Forensic Practice. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 8(4), 25–48. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ademu, Inikpi O., Inmafidon, Cris O., & Preston, David S. (2011). A New Approach of Digital Forensic Model for Digital Forensic Investigation. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Application, 2(12), 175–178. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Andrews, Lori (2012). I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy. Free Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Angus-Anderson, W. (2015). Authenticity and admissibility of social media website printouts. Duke L. & Tech. Rev., 14, 33. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Angus-Anderson, Wendy (2016). Authenticity and Admissibility of Social Media Website Printouts. Duke Law & Technology Review, 14, 33–51. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Arshad, H., Jantan, A. B., & Abiodun, O. I. (2018). Digital forensics: Review of issues in scientific validation of digital evidence. Journal of Information Processing Systems, 14(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Arshad, H., Jantan, A., & Omolara, E. (2019). Evidence collection and forensics on social networks: Research challenges and directions. Digital Investigation, 28, 126-138. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Astoni, P. Y., & Sara, Y. (2025). Peran media sosial dalam penyebaran informasi dugaan kekerasan dalam rumah tangga (KDRT) guna penegakkan hukum tindak pidana KDRT pada era digital. Jurnal Riset Multidisiplin Edukasi, 2(7), 212–230. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bowles, Stephen & Hernandez-Castro, Julio (2015). The First 10 Years of the Trojan Horse Defence. Computer Fraud & Security, January 2015, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Brenner, Susan W., Carrier, Brian, & Henninger, Jef (2004). The Trojan Horse Defense in Cybercrime Cases. Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, 21, 1–42. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Brown, D. B., Robertson, T. J., & Sullivan, L. L. (2012). I see what you did there: The use of social networks to gather evidence. Southern Law Journal, 22(2), 242–266. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Brown, R., Robertson, D., & Sullivan, J. (2012). The risks of taking Facebook at face value: Why the psychology of social networking evidence matters in court. Stanford Law Journal, 22(1), 45–78. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Budi Santoso. (2024). Evidence of social media accounts in the investigation process. Legal Brief, 13(3), 960–968. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Chen, L., Li, W., & Haddad, R. J. (2017). Special Issue on Mobile Systems, Mobile Networks, and Mobile Cloud: Security, Privacy, and Digital Forensics. Information, 8(3), 99. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Cummings, Douglas J. Jr. (2015). Authenticating Social Media Evidence at Trial: Instruction from Parker v. State. Delaware Law Review, 15, 107–136. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Daniel, Larry E., & Daniel, Lars E. (2012). Digital Forensics for Legal Professionals: Understanding Digital Evidence from the Warrant to the Courtroom. Elsevier: Massachusetts, USA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Flanagan, E. A. (2016). Guilty? Sublet v. State and the authentication of social media evidence in criminal proceedings. Villanova Law Review, 61(2), 287–316. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Garfield Tenzer, L. Y. (2019). Social media, venue, and the right to a fair trial. Baylor L. Rev., 71, 421. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Gladysz, L. M. (2012). Status Update: When Social Media Enters the Courtroom. Journal of Law & Policy for Information Society, 7, 691–714. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Glancy, G., Heintzman, M., & Wheeler, A. (2019). Battered woman syndrome: Updating the expert checklist. International Journal of Risk and Recovery, 2(2), 4–17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Grice, D., & Schwartz, B. (2012). Social Incrimination: How North American Courts Are Embracing Social Network Evidence in Criminal and Civil Trials. Man. LJ, 36, 221. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Hadi, A. M. (2024). Cyber Crime in Renewing The ITE Law to Realize The Goals of Legal Justice. Journal of Law, Society, and Islamic Civilization, 12(1), 49-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Hall-Coates, S. (2015). Following Digital Media into the Courtroom: Publicity and the open court principle in the information age. Dalhousie J. Legal Stud., 24, 101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Janoski-Haehlen, E. M. (2011). The Courts Are All a Twitter: The implications of social media use in the courts. Val. UL Rev., 46, 43. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Janoski-Haehlen, E. M. (2011). The courts are all a Twitter: The implications of social media for judicial proceedings and the administration of justice. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 39(3), 293–310. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Krisvianti, S., & Triastuti, E. (2020). Facebook group types and posts: Indonesian women free themselves from domestic violence. SEARCH Journal of Media and Communication Research, 12(3), 1–17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Laurin, Jennifer E. (2015). Criminal Law’s Science Lag: How Criminal Justice Meets Changed Scientific Understanding. Texas Law Review, 93, 1751–1790. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Marder, N. S. (2014). Jurors and social media: Is a fair trial still possible. SMUL Rev., 67, 617. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Murphy, S., & Fontecilla, A. (2013). Social media evidence in government investigations and criminal proceedings. The Computer & Internet Lawyer, 30(4), 1–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Oktana, R., Akub, S., & Maskun, M. (2023). Social media in the process of evidence of electronic information and transaction crimes. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 4(2), 320–331. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Saifuddin, N., & Zanuddin, H. (2020). Malaysian social media postings and public agenda setting in the portrayal of interpersonal violence. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 7(8), 490–497. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Sholl, E. W. (2013). Exhibit Facebook: The discoverability and admissibility of social media evidence. Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 16(2), 208–229. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Silver, L. A. (2020). The unclear picture of social media evidence. Manitoba Law Journal, 43(3), 111–136. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Subramani, S., Wang, H., Vu, H. Q., & Li, G. (2018). Domestic violence crisis identification from Facebook posts based on deep learning. IEEE Access, 6, 54075–54085. [https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2871446](https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2871446) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Sujatmiko, B., & Soesatyo, B. (2025). The Urgency of Using Electronic Evidence in Trials as an Effort to Answer the Challenges of Law Enforcement in the Digital Era and Social Media Dynamics. Asian Journal of Social and Humanities, 3(9), 1604-1613. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Uncel, Megan (2011). Facebook Is Now Friends with the Court: Current Federal Rules and Social Media Evidence. Jurimetrics, 51, 43–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Valverde, Mariana (2009). Law’s Dream of a Common Knowledge. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Whiting, J. B., Dansby Olufuwote, R., Cravens-Pickens, J. D., & Banford Witting, A. (2019). Online blaming and intimate partner violence: A content analysis of social media comments. The Qualitative Report, 24(1), 78–94. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.