This policy strikes me as pretty weird. Really strikes me as tactics where you hit people below the belt emotionally, and what happens to the potential criminal follows from the wrong kind of pressure. Especially given how social media is involved, and the people jumping on the bandwagon tend to only have a small piece of the picture. Quotes get taken out of context, stuff gets thrown around, and enough angry people and a hashtag get the momentum that no amount of reason would change their sentiments. People get misrepresented on both sides, and no one really wins. At least, that's how this kind of controversy tends to go here.
The situation where the murderer goes free (the social media upheaval brought the case up, where upon further scrutiny there might have been evidence exonerating him) is a good consequence, but the other one just screams witch hunt over a man who may have served his 20-30 years of time and the government deemed ready to return to civilian life. What if, in the first case, the murderer was found guilty after the case was brought up again? With sufficient evidence I'm sure people would calm down about the whole thing, but I can imagine many cases where a lot of them wouldn't. Of course the victim's family matters, they're directly involved, and they will most likely be involved in the court case. But outsourcing any part of the judicial process to the media or to a swath of people who don't know anything seems like it's just asking for trouble.
