Please let me know how I would score. And what are my msitakes
Question
Under British and Australian 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.
My Answer
Criminal offences are usually portrayed as a serious crime or offence, in majority parts of the world. When an offender is brought into the court, panel juries play a very crucial role in determining the conviction of the offender. Under the British and Australia laws, the past criminal record of the accused is not known to the jury, mainly for the reason of protecting the person who is being accused of the crime. However, there are debates from lawyers that this practice should be changed.
The role of jury which is known to people is "free" from biasness and act with integrity. An offender that is brought upon in the court due to criminal offences, are asking for an equal trial but some offenders are taking advantage of the system since there is no past record made to jury. Past criminal records are a good source for the jury as this would give the jury a better perspective to evaluate the offender. This could also form as a preliminary assessment of the offender past behavior, the type of past offences committed and the sentence passed.
Without these information, repeated crime are not made known to jury and offender do not have the guilty feeling of the offences they have committed which is detrimental to the victim itself as well as the victims family members.
In addition, this would also affect the society in general. Either the offender is acquitted from the crime committed or the sentence passed on the offender is not severe enough since the judgment is evaluated based on current offence only.
On the other hand, decision making by the jury could be affected due to the information made available to them. The jury may act prejudice towards the offender without noticing the effect the information has on them. This indirectly, would not give the offender a second chance to correct the mistakes that they have made. Some people would criticize this as "judgment before trial". In my country, I believe the society reacts to this differently.
In my point of view, to a certain degree I do agree that defenders past record should be made available to the jury for better decision making, but all-in-all, precaution should be taken where there is a slight hint that a jury is acting differently or shows sign of prejudice.
Question
Under British and Australian 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.
My Answer
Criminal offences are usually portrayed as a serious crime or offence, in majority parts of the world. When an offender is brought into the court, panel juries play a very crucial role in determining the conviction of the offender. Under the British and Australia laws, the past criminal record of the accused is not known to the jury, mainly for the reason of protecting the person who is being accused of the crime. However, there are debates from lawyers that this practice should be changed.
The role of jury which is known to people is "free" from biasness and act with integrity. An offender that is brought upon in the court due to criminal offences, are asking for an equal trial but some offenders are taking advantage of the system since there is no past record made to jury. Past criminal records are a good source for the jury as this would give the jury a better perspective to evaluate the offender. This could also form as a preliminary assessment of the offender past behavior, the type of past offences committed and the sentence passed.
Without these information, repeated crime are not made known to jury and offender do not have the guilty feeling of the offences they have committed which is detrimental to the victim itself as well as the victims family members.
In addition, this would also affect the society in general. Either the offender is acquitted from the crime committed or the sentence passed on the offender is not severe enough since the judgment is evaluated based on current offence only.
On the other hand, decision making by the jury could be affected due to the information made available to them. The jury may act prejudice towards the offender without noticing the effect the information has on them. This indirectly, would not give the offender a second chance to correct the mistakes that they have made. Some people would criticize this as "judgment before trial". In my country, I believe the society reacts to this differently.
In my point of view, to a certain degree I do agree that defenders past record should be made available to the jury for better decision making, but all-in-all, precaution should be taken where there is a slight hint that a jury is acting differently or shows sign of prejudice.
