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 practice of keeping a board away from the background information of the defendant has been present in most of the western countries' law systems for many centuries.

This

is because, an accused man needs to be treated with the proper justice.

Although

, a few of the lawyers do think it as a thing of the past which needs changing, but most of the law professionals still want to follow the traditional methods. There are different advantages about both the old and the new approaches, which are explained in the details below. Let's discuss about traditional approach

first

. The most important factor in an old method is that, it keeps the jury with natural decision. Which helps to save innocent people from getting punished.

For instance

, A person can't be directly found to be guilty if proper evidences are not found against him.

Also

in all these case jury's decision is always based on facts and analysis and not on sentiment

On the other hand

, in new method the jury will be provided with a background information about past facts. The highlight of

this

process is that the more time will be given to the lawmakers.

However

, additional time can work in fever off or against the criminal.

For example

, Most of the people taking a final call on the case will make decisions in advance due to known facts. To conclude, There are many ways in which accurate justice can be provided for human being. When talking about the developed nations like the United Kingdom or Australia have one of the worlds most complex legislation systems. Despite of any approach which will be taken, proper justice needs to be provided in time.