this is essay about :
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 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? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Please, I'd like to know your opinions in my following essay and correct it for me especially the grammer and word order:
Most of societies evaluate the offenders depending on their past. So, they always are not given a chance to be repentants, but to what extent has that affect on them if they were defendants in front the jury in the court?
Some people argue that, the jury should be given all the criminal history about the defendants to be aware what kind of people they are. Further more, is that people ,who commit crimes, usually have had strong cause to repeate that again.
For example, if the jury was knowing the criminal past of the defendants, they might be helped to decide, especially if their current crimes were of the same kind. Besides, usually they are being accused of the crime.
On the other hand, appearance the defendants's past criminal record to the jury could be routing their thought only to the negative facts about them. In addition, that will disturb them to concentrating on the real facts in the current litigation.
One interesting point, this practice could be used badly by lawyers who plead for defendants who commit their first crimes especially if there are defendants with a criminal history in the same doubt circle in the litigation, as well as it will become easily making wrong decision.
I personally, believe that British and Australian judicature should not change this practice because it will lead to disappearing defendants's innocence if they were repentants indeed. From my view, the jury all they need to know are current criminal case aspects about the defendants to make the right decision regardless of their criminal record.
Thanks Advanced
Most of societies evaluate the offenders depending on their past. So, they always are not given a chance to be repentants, but to what extent has that affect on them if they were defendants in front the jury in the court?
Some people argue that, the jury should be given all the criminal history about the defendants to be aware what kind of people they are. Further more Furthermore, a great number of people ,who had commited crimes, are lead to repeat that again. For example, if the jury is aware of the criminal record of the defendants, they might be helped to decide, especially if the crime being judge is of the same kind. Besides, usually they are being accused of the crime.
On the other hand, the defendants's past criminal record could affect the jury decision. It could be routing in their minds only the negative facts about the defendant. In addition, these information will prevent them of concentrating on the real facts in the current litigation. what is more, this practice could be used badly by lawyers who plead that defendants who commit their first crime especially if there are defendants with a criminal history in the same doubt circle in the litigation, as well as it will become easily making wrong decision. No clear, could you rephrase
I personally, believe that British and Australian judicature should not change this practice because it will lead to an unfair case against the possibility of the defendants's innocence if they were repentants indeed and his rights in a law fair trial in a law of court. From my view, the jury need only to know which are the current criminal case' aspects against the defendant before giving the final decision regardless of their criminal record.
Hope this will help you
Low
Sorry, I've just realised your question "Susan"
( For example, if the jury knew the criminal past of the defendants, they might be helped to decide, especially if their current crimes were of the same kind.
Besides, usually they are being accused of the crime. Did you mean to say the SAME crimes? or are repeat offenders? )
I mean to say they usually are repeating their crimes
