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 answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Although

some expert opinions support the availability of past criminal

records

to the jury, as far as I am concerned,

such

policy should not be realized. Past criminal

records

would likely bias the judgment of the judge.

Moreover

, these documents would add to the workload of legal workers,

further

preventing them from giving a fair sentence. Being given that juries are

also

humans, the past criminal transcript of a defendant would likely prompt them to form opinions that are not necessarily objective.

For instance

, suppose that a woman stabbed her husband with a knife on grounds of self-defence without any witnesses, if she had been charged with violent crime beforehand, the tribunal would be inclined to give a sentence for murder

instead

of manslaughter or self-defence.

Hence

, British and Australian laws are both wise to withhold the criminal report of a defendant. Biased judgment might

also

arise from the fatigue of the board caused by the overwhelming amount of document related to a criminal case which requires consideration. Without past criminal

records

, according to a friend of mine who study laws in the UK, legal workers already have a heavy volume of work. If past police

records

are included, the jury’s judgment would be

further

impaired due to boredom and exhaustion.

Therefore

, the defendant’s previous convictions should not be presented to the tribunal. One reason some lawyers might want to change traditional practices is that the history of crime provides insights as to how the convict should be punished: repeated offences should be more severely penalized.

However

,

this

argument is no more than an assumption supported only by the cowardice and/or laziness of certain legal workers towards considering relevant evidence at the expense of time and efforts.

Apparently

Add a comma

,Apparently

show examples

resources should be contemplated when policies are concerned, but I am focusing on the technicality of the issue in

this

essay. And technically, as stated earlier in the essay, past criminal

records

should not be released to the jury. In conclusion, regardless of some points of view favouring the accessibility of past convictions to the jury, the traditional practice of concealing it should be maintained to ensure the objectivity of the sentence. More resources might be required without past

records

, and resource analysis might reach a different conclusion.

Nevertheless

, when only

the

Correct article usage

apply

show examples

technicality is concerned, traditional practices is the best option.