Ielts task 2, topic: Law, type: Agree or disagree

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 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?

Should old crimes matter?

According to British and Australian's policies, no source of details about the crimes the defendant had done in the past shoud be reached by the jury of a court in order to prevent the person accused from being judged in the wrong way. It has been suggested by some lawyers that this law should no longer be in use so that the jury can be more likely to reach a right conclusion. However, I totally diasgree with this suggestion, considering that the merits are not be able to fully eclipse the downsides.

One the one hand, this idea brings out the advantages to some extent. Access to past criminal record helps to lessen the possibility of incorrect judgement in the sense that it may assist the jury in figuring out the personality of the defendant. This might seem to be unrelevant to some people; however, in many cases in Vietnam, many juries make the second decision because of the person's profile. As a result, this may help us to avoid punishing the good and releasing the bad.

On the other hand, the opinion mentioned above is just theory; unfortunately, the shift in regulation tends to result in more disadvantages. At times, the past can influence the jury's emotion, hence make them easily judge things unproperly. That what people did in the past do not define them in the present is an invincible truth. Paradoxically, a clean record does not mean that a person cannot commit any crime at the moment. Following the same pattern, a complicated past does not say that a person certainly do harm to anyone at present.

In conclusion, it is my belief that the initial policies should not be altered. If not, the equality in court might not maintain anymore.

I would very appreciate it if you score my essay.

Here are several advises for you.
The first statement is just for leading the topic and tell the reader whether you agree or disagree, but your first paragraph (92 words) is too long and the important part, such as second paragraph (85 words) and third paragraph (93 words) is relatively short. Besides, the first sentence of this paragraph is also too long and complex to understand. Actually, a long sentence is not always good, especially when it is an improper use. Many students like to state " I agree this idea because its merits outweigh its demerits" as last sentence of first paragraph, there is nothing wrong with this statement, but it is not proper to use it in all of the topics. Maybe, all of the topics, including agree or disagree, positive or negative, advantages or disadvantages could be converted advantages or disadvantages. I don't know whether paraphrasing topic like this is good.

Tran, due to the fact that you did not properly discuss this essay, the score that you can get for it is only a 4. That is because it only partially responds to the prompt requirements. For instance, you were not asked for the extent of your agreement or disagreement with the discussion topic and yet you give an extent or measurement of your disagreement by saying "I totally disagree". That is for a different type of essay discussion presentation.

Additionally, this essay must be discussed only from one point of view since there is no instruction to "discuss both views" as is given in some essay instructions. Therefore, you did not adequately discuss the topic in the manner expected of the prompt instructions. The conclusion is also faulty as it is only a single line that does not accurately restate the prompt, summarize the discussion provided, and then repeated your opinion on the matter. It is because of these problems with your work that I feel that the score of 4 would be the most applicable in this instance.