Ostensibly, the people accused of a criminal offence should not retain anonymity in the legal system due to possibilites of corruption and victim grievances. Although there are few noticeable benefits in favour of anonymity in the justice system, such as the mental health of the accused and bias from the jury it is arguably more important to weigh the importance of publicity rather than anonymity to promote a just legal system.
The first question to consider regrrding anonymity is the sensitivity of the crime. For example, crimes considering a simple mis-demeanour have little benefit in being kept anonymous. To elaborate, the accused reputation is not damaged due to the small scale of the crime and they are not likely to face any controversy from the public due to this scale. Furthermore, the accused mental health will likely remain unaffected by having the case public because of this. In the case where the crime is more serious, some may argue that the case should be kept anonymous. For example, the media’s publication of a case involving a paedophile as the accused led to the eventual suicide of said accused. This suggests that due to the possible ostricisation of the accused from society and the effect this may have on the accused mental health we should keep all cases strictly confidential. However, when we examine this further we discover that the root of the issue lies with the lack of a support structure in place for the accused in cases of moral degradation of the accused, and the fault of the media with portraying a story which entertains rather than enlightens. The necessary therapy was not given to the accused paedophile which is a major contributor to his death. Also, media outlets such as the mirror and bbc often provide false information to the public to promote views not the truth of the case leading harmful reputational damage of the accused, and hence the media and the lack of support structure rather than the lack of anonymity.
Regardless of the sensitivity of the crime with criminal anonymity corruption thrives. Any bias from the judge or wrong convictions may go unnoticed and therefore the accused may never get the justice they deserve. For example, individuals with a smaller global presence will never have their voices heard so an unfair jurisdiction could face no backlash.