LNAT Practice Test Essay – Laws should prioritize individual liberties over public safety. Do you agree or disagree? Explain your reasoning.

In the LawMint LNAT Practice Test Series for 2024 and 2025, there are 30 full length tests, with 360 passages – 1260 MCQs and 90 essay prompts or essay questions.

The essay below is a sample that can be written for the prompt:

Laws should prioritize individual liberties over public safety. Do you agree or disagree? Explain your reasoning.

This LNAT essay question is included in LawMint LNAT Practice Test series.

While the model essays may include both sides of an argument, the question may require you to state your stance - either for or against; and support it with arguments.

Read our articles and watch the videos on our YouTube channel for guidance on how to structure and write the LNAT Essay.

Introduction

One of the most enduring debates in the realm of law and policy is the balance between individual liberties and public safety. At the heart of this debate lies the question of whether laws should prioritize personal freedoms over the collective well-being of society. This essay will examine the arguments for and against prioritizing individual liberties over public safety and explain the author’s stance on this issue.

Arguments for Prioritizing Individual Liberties

Proponents of prioritizing individual liberties argue that personal freedoms are essential to a thriving democracy and the protection of human rights. They contend that once the government begins to encroach upon individual liberties in the name of public safety, it becomes increasingly difficult to prevent further erosions of personal freedoms. This, in turn, could pave the way for authoritarianism and a diminished quality of democratic governance.

Additionally, supporters of individual liberties maintain that personal freedoms foster creativity, innovation, and diversity. By allowing individuals to express themselves and pursue their own interests without undue interference from the government, societies can flourish and become more resilient in the face of challenges. In this sense, prioritizing individual liberties can contribute to the overall well-being and progress of society.

Arguments for Prioritizing Public Safety

On the other hand, proponents of prioritizing public safety argue that the primary responsibility of governments is to protect their citizens and maintain social order. In certain cases, this may necessitate placing limitations on individual liberties to prevent harm or disruption to the broader community. For example, laws that prohibit hate speech or regulate the possession of firearms can be seen as necessary measures to protect public safety and promote social harmony.

Furthermore, advocates of prioritizing public safety maintain that a certain level of stability and security is necessary for individuals to fully exercise their personal freedoms. In the absence of public safety, societies can become chaotic and dysfunctional, making it difficult for individuals to pursue their own interests and enjoy their liberties. Thus, prioritizing public safety can be seen as a prerequisite for the preservation of individual liberties in the long run.

The Author’s Stance

The author’s stance is that a balanced approach to individual liberties and public safety is necessary for the development and preservation of a healthy, democratic society. While individual liberties are essential to the protection of human rights and the promotion of creativity and diversity, public safety must also be considered to ensure social stability and allow individuals to fully exercise their freedoms.

In order to strike this balance, it is crucial for governments to establish clear and transparent criteria for determining when limitations on individual liberties are justified in the interest of public safety. This process should involve input from a diverse range of stakeholders, including legal experts, policymakers, and citizens, to ensure that the resulting laws and regulations are fair, equitable, and reflective of societal values.

Additionally, governments should be held accountable for their actions and decisions related to the balance between individual liberties and public safety. This can be achieved through robust oversight mechanisms, such as judicial review and independent commissions, as well as through public discourse and democratic processes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, striking a balance between individual liberties and public safety is a complex and nuanced issue that requires careful consideration and ongoing dialogue. While both individual liberties and public safety are essential components of a healthy society, it is crucial for governments to navigate these competing interests in a fair and transparent manner.

By engaging in open discussions, establishing clear criteria for limitations on personal freedoms, and ensuring accountability for their actions, governments can preserve both individual liberties and public safety in the best interests of their citizens.