Under British and Australian laws a jury in a criminal case has no access to information about the defendants' 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?
It is an obvious phenomenon that every day huge number of people commit crimes over the world. In this way, the judges come across with a variety of criminals and they bear responsibility for their resolution. For decreasing the risk of errors, British and Australian jurists was taken an offer not to review defendant's crimes in the past. Some lawyers assent this practice, while others absolutely against to this idea and insist on giving all the facts before they reach their decision about the case. There is no doubt that deeper investigation of events helps judgers on making decision, but in my point of view the past criminal record of defendants should be off-limits.
First of all , these people are responsible only for the actions that they did today, because they have already punished for their wrongdoing. For example,
one man stole a wallet in a department store years ago, and he not only got a prison sentence, he also had done his time well in the prison. However, if something missed again while he was being in the store, he would catch most of the attention during the investment from police. These kinds of situation easily makes someone guilty, though he's not.
Furthermore, there were several situations when prosecutors overestimated crime commiters with giving incorrect information about their previous crime. For instance, accused person who steal some products from market, can be inferred as the robber of huge amount of money. In this occasion, if they have no best advocates, they can become a prisoner for a long time.
In a nutshell, I expect to see a fair trial and believe that judgers will find out the best judge system for investigation by making decisions ought to present law-breakings.
290 words
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?
It is an obvious phenomenon that every day huge number of people commit crimes over the world. In this way, the judges come across with a variety of criminals and they bear responsibility for their resolution. For decreasing the risk of errors, British and Australian jurists was taken an offer not to review defendant's crimes in the past. Some lawyers assent this practice, while others absolutely against to this idea and insist on giving all the facts before they reach their decision about the case. There is no doubt that deeper investigation of events helps judgers on making decision, but in my point of view the past criminal record of defendants should be off-limits.
First of all , these people are responsible only for the actions that they did today, because they have already punished for their wrongdoing. For example,
one man stole a wallet in a department store years ago, and he not only got a prison sentence, he also had done his time well in the prison. However, if something missed again while he was being in the store, he would catch most of the attention during the investment from police. These kinds of situation easily makes someone guilty, though he's not.
Furthermore, there were several situations when prosecutors overestimated crime commiters with giving incorrect information about their previous crime. For instance, accused person who steal some products from market, can be inferred as the robber of huge amount of money. In this occasion, if they have no best advocates, they can become a prisoner for a long time.
In a nutshell, I expect to see a fair trial and believe that judgers will find out the best judge system for investigation by making decisions ought to present law-breakings.
290 words