Recently there has been no shortage of discussion about whether offenders' previous convictions should be compatibly considered along with current charges by juries in trials, especially in Australia and Britain whose law systems disprove the earlier misconducts. In my perspective, this change has both advantages and disadvantages, as will now be presented
To begin with, as for benefits, necessity of objectively justified consideration is on the top of juries' agenda in any trials. For instance, greater access to offenders' criminal records provides jurors with variable evidence so as to be more accurate prior to giving judgment. Added in more, a thorough analysis on defendants' past records enables juries to come up with proper decision. Specifically, it is generally accepted that personality or characteristics involve in criminals' deep-rooted sense of committing crimes. Therefore, further preventing shall be taken by carefully abstracting the personal background. Next, biased thinking or prejudice against defendants in spite of unveiling personal convictions would result in an unfair trial.
On the contrary, the change of this practice also has many defects. First, devastation and unsatisfaction from the victims can be caused owing to only relying on the defendants' previous convictions to measure levels of punishment instead of present offence which might be intolerable. Secondly, misjudging can also be sparked due to the whole catalogue of relevant long-ago convictions. In particular, supposing the victims mistakenly framed on you for murdering, and you have illegal act previously, it is obvious that you would be concurred as an offenders.
In brief, getting access to information of criminals' past records of juries has benefits and drawbacks for both defendants and juries themselves who are likely to have a bad press for being unfair.
Please help me with my ideas organizing. thanks in advance