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?

In some parts of the world, namely the USA, Britain and Australia, a person who is accused of a crime is judged in front of a

jury

of his peers. Unlike the American system in which, the defendant's criminal record is brought forth as imperative information that the

jury

needs to consider, in Britain and Australia those records remained sealed. While

this

has been the case for many years, some lawyers argue that the conventional system has to change. In order to come to a decision regarding

this

controversial subject, we must ask ourselves whether a person's past influence his future endeavours. In my humble opinion, the lawyers are correct and

this

current practice should be reformed. People who support the current paradigm state that by bringing criminal records forward the suspect will not receive a fair trial as his past will influence the conclusion of the

jury

.

Moreover

, some can argue that it is wrong to treat two people who are accused of the same crime differently just because they have different criminal records as our past cannot predict our future and by doing so we render the prospect of rehabilitation irrelevant.

On the other hand

, it seems to me that criminal records are part of the process of the trial as they are an evidence of the accused tendency toward criminal behaviour. Statistically speaking, it is highly probable that a person with a rich criminal record will act on his impulses and commit crime again. Imagine being a

jury

in a murder trial, wouldn’t you want to know everything about the defendant? I think that the recent documentary named "the jinx" can shed some light on

this

issue. It tells the story of a rich man who was the prime suspect in three murder trials but was never convicted. The movie reveals new facts about the case and shows that he actually was the killer of all three. I believe that

this

story goes a long way to show how important it is to see the big picture and come to an informed decision based on every bit of information available. In conclusion, I believe that a

jury

in a criminal case should receive every piece of information needed in order to facilitate their decision. I reckon that a defendant's criminal record should be considered an evidence for the trial and

therefore

, made available to the

jury

.