Unanswered [1] | Urgent [0]

Home / Writing Feedback   % width NEW!


Geenesh 21 / 29  
Aug 29, 2011   #1
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?

It is a well known fact that a jury involved in a case has no information regarding the criminal's past illegal acts under the British and Australian laws. There are few of those who are concerned think the current practice should be altered and that the juries should at least know something about the criminals before coming to a conclusion. I, for one, agree to this resolution whole-heartedly as it poses advantages to various parties as I shall discuss below.

First and foremost, I believe that it would be easier for the juries to make a decision if they know about the past information about the criminal. This is because, knowing their background very well will enable the juries to analyze the crime before coming up with a judgment. For instance, take a person who has not murdered anyone but is suddenly found to be guilty. The juries will be able to know weather the individual committed the crime intentionally or due to circumstances by knowing the facts about the person. Then, punishment can be given in accordance to the condition.

Apart from that, a fair trial can be achieved. As all of us know, juries are a group of people who have no or less knowledge regarding law. Thus, exposing them to the past records of the criminal can give them more room to think rationally and finally put the pieces together in order to produce a more meaningful decision. By doing so, the juries will have a sense of relief that they have come up with better conclusion based on plenty of evidences. Not only that, the convicted will also receive a fair action.

It is undeniable that when the background of the convicted is 'dug' deeper and is revealed to mass of anonymous people, his privacy is being jeopardized. If finally he is proven innocent, he may feel embarrassed to face the public. However, I am sure that the crimes done by criminals should be brought to light and the public should be aware of it so that they will not become a victim as well.

To conclude, I definitely feel that the current way of the juries judging the case should be transformed and they should know the facts about the criminals they are dealing with. This is of paramount importance so that they will be able to give a better and reliable as well as a fair judgment to the convicted. Beneficial changes will certainly take place if changes are made because for a change to happen, changes have to be done.