It's the first time that i post my essay on this forum. So, thanks a lot for your help! Linh Nguyen :D
Final judgements made by the jury is known as a complex interplay of many factors. Recently, it has been a debatable issue whether the jury should be given any pastfacts of the defendant before reaching ultimate decision or not. However, this essay will highlight 2 main points covering the approval of these regulation.
First off, being provided with the defendant's past criminal record allows the jury to comprehend the crime motivation so as to have an appropriate deterrent. In fact, if the accused has previous sentence, it is highly likely that those criminal records have a sort of connection with the current one in terms of guilty motive and form of crime. It is actually regarded as a key factor in determining the investigating direction and sentence process. In addition, blank or in contrast, full pastfacts can make known different "seriousness rate" of the defendant's offences. Accordingly, well-founded measures will be made as a sharp deterrent, with light or heavy pelnaties respectively.
Secondly, having a thorough grasp of the suspect's past sentence, members of the jury will easily interrogate their defendant during the trial. Holding the most critical point, these jury are able to put thorny questions which can disorientate defendant and force them to tell the truth. Even if it is not their own fault, it is also with ease for the jury to realize whether it is other person's conspiracy or not. By this way, because all soft spots have been already caught, any insincere testimony from the defendant will be known and their denial will be made inefficient.
To sum up, pastfacts should be considered as a useful referrence with which a final judgement can be made from the jury. Having those important documentary, hence, the jury will stand a greater chance of giving a right sentence towards any guilty person standing in front of the dock
Final judgements made by the jury is known as a complex interplay of many factors. Recently, it has been a debatable issue whether the jury should be given any pastfacts of the defendant before reaching ultimate decision or not. However, this essay will highlight 2 main points covering the approval of these regulation.
First off, being provided with the defendant's past criminal record allows the jury to comprehend the crime motivation so as to have an appropriate deterrent. In fact, if the accused has previous sentence, it is highly likely that those criminal records have a sort of connection with the current one in terms of guilty motive and form of crime. It is actually regarded as a key factor in determining the investigating direction and sentence process. In addition, blank or in contrast, full pastfacts can make known different "seriousness rate" of the defendant's offences. Accordingly, well-founded measures will be made as a sharp deterrent, with light or heavy pelnaties respectively.
Secondly, having a thorough grasp of the suspect's past sentence, members of the jury will easily interrogate their defendant during the trial. Holding the most critical point, these jury are able to put thorny questions which can disorientate defendant and force them to tell the truth. Even if it is not their own fault, it is also with ease for the jury to realize whether it is other person's conspiracy or not. By this way, because all soft spots have been already caught, any insincere testimony from the defendant will be known and their denial will be made inefficient.
To sum up, pastfacts should be considered as a useful referrence with which a final judgement can be made from the jury. Having those important documentary, hence, the jury will stand a greater chance of giving a right sentence towards any guilty person standing in front of the dock
Do You Need