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?

The authorities of developed countries, have enacted laws that

prevents

Suggestion

prevent

people who have been sworn to give an impartial

verdict

, from visualizing past criminal

information

of the accused. It has been opined by attorneys that

;

Accept space

;

this

trend be looked into and a

jury

be given the opportunity to get all previous fact about the

defendant

, before a

verdict

is given. I agree with

this

opinion and

this

essay will give reasons. One of the reasons I give into

this

opinion, is that, when past records of the accused are laid

jare

a vessel (usually cylindrical) with a wide mouth and without handles

jar

are

chair

in front of a

jury

, it gives the whole history of the

defendant

. There are people with criminal minds, and

this

may only be seen when a

jury

goes through past records. Take as an example; an individual who is accused of murder, every

defendant

pleads not guilty in the court of law, but if those that are to give

verdict

Suggestion

a verdict

, are allowed to see through the previous

information

of the accused, it gives them the opportunity to know the individual beyond the words of mouth.

Consequently

, they give an impartial judgement.

Secondly

, if a

jury

knows nothing about the accused, cross-examination might become difficult, but when a

jury

is not denied

Suggestion

does not deny

doesn't deny

access to past records, they are able to get the

defendant

's detailed

information

. Take

for instance

, in Nigeria, where all

informations

a message received and understood

information

either past or present are provided, it has been seen that people with past criminal records, are often guilty of the present crime,

thus

, a correct

verdict

is given.

On the other hand

, when past records are supplied to those are sworn to give an impartial

verdict

, they might become biased. There is no law that says an ex-criminal is always a criminal, when previous records

arenot

Suggestion

are not

assessed by a

jury

, they have a free mind towards the

defendant

. To sum it up, granting

jury

access to a

defendant

's previous criminal facts, gives them cogent

information

as regards the accused,

also

allowing for good cross-examination, resulting into good and fair judgement.

However

, a

jury

have

Suggestion

has

to be more careful, so as not to become biased due to the facts he knows about the accused,

thus

affecting his

verdict

.