lnat essay feedback

can anyone give me feedback on this essay i wrote in timed conditions? its my second timed attempt so its definitely not great so any improvements would be much appreciated. thank you!!!!!!

Should people accused of a criminal offence retain anonymity? (594 words)

In this essay, I will argue that those accused of a criminal offence should indeed retain anonymity. I will first explain how revealing the identities of the accused contravenes the key principle that an accused is ‘innocent until proven guilty’. I will then look at the consequences that may follow for wider society if an accused does not retain their anonymity. For the purposes of this essay, I will define an ‘accused’ person as a person who has not yet been judged innocent or guilty of an offence, ‘anonymity’ as a person being in a state where their identity has not been revealed to the public.

Public disgust is often a consequence (be it unintended or not) for being judged guilty of a crime. Being treated as a pariah is often how a community administers its own version of justice; why, then, should someone not yet judged guilty of an offence face these consequences? The principle that an accused is innocent until proven guilty is a foundational principle of our criminal justice system, as well as a human right outlined in the Human Rights Act of 1988. Many who are subject to a media circus or public scrutiny during their trial feel that they have already been tried and sentenced, perhaps even before setting foot in the courtroom. Treating an accused person as guilty is an encroachment on human rights and can never result in a fair trial.

Loss of anonymity does not merely affect an accused, but also society at large, often to disastrous effect. An example is the recent case of Eleanor Williams, who accused a group of Asian men of gang rape. In the surrounding area, there were over 150 racially motivated crimes recorded linked to the case, with local Asian businessowners losing revenue, with one owner claiming to have lost as much as £80,000 in revenue. Certainly, an innocent accused person losing their anonymity will face the consequences of a besmirched reputation forever, but we must also think about the impact on society as a whole. Publicised false accusations can spell a horror story for marginalised communities, especially in areas where the majority community is looking for any opportunity to discriminate.
There are many who would argue against the points listed above. It is possible to argue that in some cases, being shunned by the public may be an optimal punishment. For example, those accused of white-collar crimes are often trying to achieve status or prestige via their crimes. What better punishment for someone seeking glory than to publicly reveal their treachery? In light of this, certain people may argue that those accused of a crime should not always maintain anonymity.

Whether the accused is guilty or not, they have the right to a fair trial, and they have the right to feel safe during it. Riling up the public or even inciting violence as part of a punishment is simply not viable. By publicising the identity of any accused, we invite the public to take justice into their own hands, before they have even been judged guilty, which has historically had horrific outcomes. The administering of justice should take place within the court walls- the safest and most efficient place.

In conclusion, I maintain that people accused of a criminal offence should maintain anonymity. Any punishment should be administered after a person has been judged guilty, and not before. Being reviled by the public often forms part of a punishment as an unintended consequence, and a person who is neither guilty nor innocent should not be subject to this.