Hello, I found this forum accidentally, because I needed someone to correct my essay (and further essays), since I'm preparing for exam. I'm really glad to join. I would be very thankful if someone could help me and maybe could even write an overall IELTS score. :>
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 practise 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.
You should write at least 250 words.
Crime is one of the most discussed problems in the world and governments of countries spend lots of time discussing the ways to prevent crime or reduce its rates. They way of judging people is also a problem. Lawyers in UK and Australia discuss whether judges should be aware of criminal's past record before making the final decision. In my opinion, it is definitely a thing to consider.
Crimes vary from stealing pocket money from a scholar to a murder, rape or robbery. Therefore, criminals are different, too. Some of them started their "career" in their early childhood and others made one mistake which changed their life. That's why criminal's past is an essential thing to know before judging a person. If a person who made a crime is constantly doing something which is against the law, it means that it is in his blood already, but if it is his first crime, I think it's important to discuss the reasons.
In addition, judges aren't gods and they can never be sure about one or another crime. There were, there are and there will be people, who will be put into jail, though they haven't done anything wrong. I think it is really important to know whether defendant made crimes before. If not, judges should consider the strength of the evidence again because the person can actually be guiltless.
Overall, judging people is a responsible job and decisions which are made must be right. Therefore defendant's past definitely should be as one of the things to consider because it can actually show whether person tends to make crimes or not. Most importantly, it can effect judge's final decision.
P.S. It took me 30 min to write this essay and I'm not sure about one thing: should I rewrite my essay or can I just leave it like this (there are some corrections, crossings, etc)? Thank you.
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 practise 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.
You should write at least 250 words.
Crime is one of the most discussed problems in the world and governments of countries spend lots of time discussing the ways to prevent crime or reduce its rates. They way of judging people is also a problem. Lawyers in UK and Australia discuss whether judges should be aware of criminal's past record before making the final decision. In my opinion, it is definitely a thing to consider.
Crimes vary from stealing pocket money from a scholar to a murder, rape or robbery. Therefore, criminals are different, too. Some of them started their "career" in their early childhood and others made one mistake which changed their life. That's why criminal's past is an essential thing to know before judging a person. If a person who made a crime is constantly doing something which is against the law, it means that it is in his blood already, but if it is his first crime, I think it's important to discuss the reasons.
In addition, judges aren't gods and they can never be sure about one or another crime. There were, there are and there will be people, who will be put into jail, though they haven't done anything wrong. I think it is really important to know whether defendant made crimes before. If not, judges should consider the strength of the evidence again because the person can actually be guiltless.
Overall, judging people is a responsible job and decisions which are made must be right. Therefore defendant's past definitely should be as one of the things to consider because it can actually show whether person tends to make crimes or not. Most importantly, it can effect judge's final decision.
P.S. It took me 30 min to write this essay and I'm not sure about one thing: should I rewrite my essay or can I just leave it like this (there are some corrections, crossings, etc)? Thank you.
