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

, many lawyers believe that not being able to see criminal's past

records

as Australian and British law not allowed people to go through it. Which gives a better chance to criminals is convincing, I think in a reverse manner and agree to the given statement. My inclination is justified in the ensuing paragraphs. Out of all the arguments of a jury should have an

idea

about the

person

past ,who committed a crime. The strongest view to prove my opinion is a

person

should never remain the same as he was before.

This

is to say each and every individual in

this

world always learn from their mistakes and try to achieve a good life. To illustrate, a theft , who was caught by police, and the court announced 2-year prison to him, he would never ever commit

this

kind of crime, and

also

each and every time when

this

type of situation comes he would react differently, so , focusing on past would put the jury in dilemma. And they may finish on the wrong path. The other reason to prove my point is every day in

Add an article

the

show examples

life a

person

lives a different life. So, judging his on basis of past

records

would be not a good

idea

.

For example

, Mukesh Ambani is donating a huge amount of money to Indian trust nowadays, but if he is arrested in a fraud case, which he accused on people and a judge decides after reading his past

records

, they might think that he is a good

person

he could not do

this

and they relieved him. So, evidence is only key to put their judgement on the criminal rather than wasting time on studying the past of the

person

.

On the contrary

, some lawyers counterclaim the mentioned support. The foremost reason they do is judges do not have an

idea

about the criminal background and they just see evidence, which could be manipulated by the

person

with the power of the money they have.

Also

, studying the background of someone would get a better

idea

of a

person

's personality and character. which leads a case in a good direction.

Thus

, to wrap up the discussion, it can be said that despite

Correct article usage

the

show examples

benefits of accessing the criminal

records

, my reasons prove a

person

could be judged on present

records

as well as with evidence of the crime are logically acceptable. That's why I laid the former view.