‌Context & Objective: The expansion of social media has facilitated the growth of online content creation across various professions, recently encompassing the judicial sector. Judicial blogging is a novel phenomenon where judges publish verdicts, hearing details, and legal opinions on dedicated profiles, actively engaging with public commentary. A frequently scrutinized subject of these shared decisions involves community punishments, which serve as alternatives to traditional imprisonment. While the community-oriented nature of these alternative sentences inherently enables populist tendencies, the extensive media exposure of judicial decisions constitutes a primary catalyst for the broader manifestation of penal populism. Penal populism in this context denotes an approach where justice mechanisms prioritize public sentiment and popularity over evidence-based legal doctrines. Consequently, a fundamental critique of judicial blogging is the emergence of a populist approach in the adjudication of community punishments. The primary objective of this research is to rigorously examine the influence of penal populism on the issuance of community punishment verdicts, focusing specifically on judicial blogging, and investigating how this public-facing activity affects the core principles governing the judicial process.
 ‌Method & Approach: To address the research objectives, the study utilized a qualitative content analysis methodology to evaluate the digital footprint of the targeted subjects. Content analysis serves to determine the presence, meaning, and relationships of specific themes within qualitative data structures, encompassing language, music, and imagery. The sampling involved the selection of dedicated Instagram pages belonging to five active Iranian blogging judges. Within these profiles, specific posts directly pertaining to the issuance of community punishments were systematically identified. Subsequently, the content of these targeted posts was subjected to rigorous thematic evaluation. This analytical process encompassed a comprehensive review of the primary visual materials, the accompanying textual captions, quantifiable metrics of audience approval, and the qualitative data derived from the postscripts and direct comments submitted by the online audience.
 ‌Findings: The analysis reveals that judicial blogging concerning community punishments actively fosters an environment conducive to penal populism, leading to significant procedural deficiencies within the justice system. A primary finding is the contradiction between this practice and the principle of judicial independence. By exposing verdicts to public scrutiny, judges become susceptible to public opinion, where audience approval dictates decision-making and shifts the focus from legal merit to public validation. This dynamic results in the dominance of emotional responses over rational jurisprudence, distancing the judicial process from professional expertise. Furthermore, many publicized, innovative community punishments lack fundamental deterrent capabilities. Sentences designed to garner social media praise often resemble rewards, failing to impose tangible costs on offenders and emboldening others to commit similar infractions. The study identifies a problematic diversion of judicial resources; maintaining an active social media presence consumes substantial time that should be dedicated to meticulous case review. Educational objectives are frequently compromised to attract audiences, leading to the publication of professionally inappropriate content, such as analyzing colloquial music to explain offenses under taʿzīrāt (discretionary punishments in Islamic Panel Code of Iran). Additionally, scientific legal critique is routinely overshadowed by superficial audience commentary focusing on the judge's physical appearance. Finally, numerous published verdicts blatantly conflict with existing legal statutes by mandating financial expenditures rather than physical or intellectual labor.
 ‌Conclusion: The intersection of judicial duties and social media blogging poses a severe threat to the integrity of the criminal justice system by facilitating the intrusion of penal populism into formal adjudication. While the legislative intent behind community punishments was to reduce prison populations and promote social rehabilitation, the lack of precise statutory definitions has allowed judicial discretion to evolve into legally unfounded, theatrical sentencing designed for public consumption. These performative verdicts fundamentally compromise the realization of justice, undermine criminal deterrence, and violate the core principle of the legality of crimes and punishments. Although judicial authorities attempt to encourage alternative sentencing through official festivals, the specific manifestations promoted by blogging judges frequently lack legal justification and necessary supervisory mechanisms. To preserve judicial independence, it is imperative for the legislature to explicitly clarify the legal texts governing community punishments. Concurrently, the judicial apparatus must strictly enforce professional conduct standards, expressly prohibiting judges from engaging in blogging activities related to their profession to safeguard the legal system from the destabilizing effects of penal populism.