Writing Feedback / Access to information about the defendant criminal record - Ielts writing task [8]

Question: Under British and Australia laws a jury in a criminal case has no access to information about the defendant's past criminal record. This protects the person who is being accused of the crime.

Some lawyers have suggested that this practice should be changed and that a jury should be given all the past facts before they reach their decision about the case.

Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer.

It is juries duty to judge whether an accused one is guilty or not in a criminal case. In order to reach the right decision, they have to collect as much information as possible in the trial. However, in British and Australia laws it is not possible for jury to reach defendant's past criminal record. I believe that knowing this information may lead juries to have the wrong decision in a trial.

First, a jury has to give an impartial judgment. Knowing (about?) defendant's past criminal record, a jury may have bias against the defendant. If the defendant has committed a crime before, then jury might believe that he/she is more likely to commit the same or another crime again. Therefore they may reach a wrong decision about the trial because of the impact of the defendant's past criminal record on the jury.

Second, for juries, there is no benefit of having access to defendant's past criminal record. It is not possible to judge someone according to his/her past criminal records. Juries has to reach their decisions by the aid of evidences. Therefore, defendant's criminal records cannot be considered as an evidence. There has to be concrete evidences that shows whether the accused one committed the crime or not.

On the other hand, in some cases the accused one has committed the same crime s/he is accused of in the recent trial. In this case, the sanction should be severer. If the jury cannot reach defendant's past criminal records, then they will not know whether the accused one has commited the same crime before or not. Thus, the sanction will not be severer even though the defendant has committed the same crime before.

In conclusion, I believe that a jury should be able to access every information about the case, except the defendant's past criminal records. If they access to this information they might consider this information as an evidence itself and this might effect the decision they will reach.

333 words

Writing Feedback / Should nations maintain old buildings. Ielts [3]

Many old buildings are protected by law because they are part of a nation's history. However, some people think old buildings should be knocked down to make way for new ones because people need houses and offices.

How important is it to maintain old buildings? Should history stand in the way of progress?

Almost in every country, there are some buildings which reflect the history of the nation through its age or outlook. However, in some countries buildings like those are not well looked after. Because of this, some people claim that they should be replaced by new ones in order to fulfil the inhabitants' needs of house and office. In my opinion, every nation should protect those buildings by law and maintain them.

First, those historical buildings cannot be treated as simple structures. No matter how useless they are, they symbolise the identity of the nation they belong to. Those which are protected by law are mostly the ones who has been through wars and seen through centuries. They can bring the visitors back to those years they were built. Morever, sometimes they are the reason why the country is visited by a large number of tourists. In Germany, there are numerous buildings that is protected by the government although they are located in an area where the population is high, nevertheless, they are used neither as housing nor business operation.

Second, there are many examples of historical buildings that are converted into offices or residential housing after restoration. There is no logical reason to replace those buildings by new ones as long as restoration is possible. Also those buldings can be used as museums by the aid of government funding.

Governments should not let those buildings be knocked down by private individuals or companies. As it is mentioned before, those buildings reflect the history of the nation, the wars they have stood through, regardless of victories or loses. Replacing those buildings with new ones may be a temporary solution for inhabitants but will certainly be the loss of a part of history permanently.

In conclusion, I believe that governments should look for new areas to provide housing and office for people, instead of knocking down buildings that reflect the history of a nation.