HELP ME PLEASE!!!! I'VE IELTS SHORTLY!
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.
250 wordsThe British and Australian laws provide for the judgment of criminal case that the jury has not the access to the past criminal record of the defendant. Thus, for protecting who is being accused of a crime.
On the other hand, some people believe that this practice should be changed because the jury has to know the past of the suspect for judging him during a trial. In this essay I will explain both of these view of point.
For some people the jury must be aware of several factors such as the environmental in which the defendant grew, the reason that led him to make a crime or other crimes, if he committed them.
All of this is helpful for the jury to have a summary table and thus they reach a correct decision about the case. It is important for ensure at the community that these person do not commit again a crime.
On the other hand, the jury have a duty to judge a present crime of the defendant and not his past crimes.
From my point of view, this depend on the kind of charge. For example, if the defendant is charged of murder, the jury should aware of his past criminal record. For example when the jury have to judge a man who has already killed in past.
In conclusion, I agree with the first point of view because the jury have to decide the present crime of the suspect, from my point of view they should have the chance to know the past criminal record only for special cases.