Question: 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? Give reasons for your answers.
In Britain and Australia, records of the defendant's previously convicted crimes are lawfully concealed from the jury. This practice is expected to prevent biased judgments on the defendant. However, it has encountered disagreement from some lawyers as they insist that a view of the accused person's criminal background should be provided to the jury. This essay partially agrees with this viewpoint, whilst to an extent, acknowledges the merits of the existing practice.
Firstly, a comprehensive view of the defendant's background, including past criminal records, provides the essential foundation for the decision making process of the jury. Without exception, a person's past events profoundly influence their actions in the present. In the context of a criminal case, criminals involving in systematic crimes such as drug trafficking or bank theft have a tendency to re-commit their crimes, because the crimes are basically their profession. In addition, some offences reflect a person's habitual course of action. For instance, multiple past records of shoplifting or drunk-driving may indicate that the person has a habit of committing these crimes. Therefore, chances of them committing such offences are significantly higher than that of those who consistently conform to the laws.
On the other hand, the current practice is reasonable in the sense that it defends the accused person from misleading stereotypes facilitated by their previous conviction. The mistakes in the past may be irrelevant to the present circumstances, and the person's actions may no longer be based on the past situations. Some offences may be unintentional, and therefore do not reflect a person's tendency of actions. It is also to be noted that many past criminals receive re-education and wish to turn to the honest path of living. Hence, judgments based on previous conviction may become unfair and biased.
In conclusion, both the current practice and the opposing idea have their own reasonable justifications. The criminal background of a person may act as a foundation for their present offences, and therefore should be considered by the jury. Nevertheless, conclusions based on accidental crimes in the past may be inaccurate and irrelevant in the present situation.
This one's a bit long since it's a complicated topic, I had a hard time working it out in my head :)) Please include a specific band score for this essay in your comment if possible. Thank you!
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? Give reasons for your answers.
guilty of past crimes
In Britain and Australia, records of the defendant's previously convicted crimes are lawfully concealed from the jury. This practice is expected to prevent biased judgments on the defendant. However, it has encountered disagreement from some lawyers as they insist that a view of the accused person's criminal background should be provided to the jury. This essay partially agrees with this viewpoint, whilst to an extent, acknowledges the merits of the existing practice.
Firstly, a comprehensive view of the defendant's background, including past criminal records, provides the essential foundation for the decision making process of the jury. Without exception, a person's past events profoundly influence their actions in the present. In the context of a criminal case, criminals involving in systematic crimes such as drug trafficking or bank theft have a tendency to re-commit their crimes, because the crimes are basically their profession. In addition, some offences reflect a person's habitual course of action. For instance, multiple past records of shoplifting or drunk-driving may indicate that the person has a habit of committing these crimes. Therefore, chances of them committing such offences are significantly higher than that of those who consistently conform to the laws.
On the other hand, the current practice is reasonable in the sense that it defends the accused person from misleading stereotypes facilitated by their previous conviction. The mistakes in the past may be irrelevant to the present circumstances, and the person's actions may no longer be based on the past situations. Some offences may be unintentional, and therefore do not reflect a person's tendency of actions. It is also to be noted that many past criminals receive re-education and wish to turn to the honest path of living. Hence, judgments based on previous conviction may become unfair and biased.
In conclusion, both the current practice and the opposing idea have their own reasonable justifications. The criminal background of a person may act as a foundation for their present offences, and therefore should be considered by the jury. Nevertheless, conclusions based on accidental crimes in the past may be inaccurate and irrelevant in the present situation.
This one's a bit long since it's a complicated topic, I had a hard time working it out in my head :)) Please include a specific band score for this essay in your comment if possible. Thank you!
