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?

It is distinctively stated in any countries law, how a defendant’s previous wrongdoings can affect them in a trial. Some countries,

such

as the United Kingdom and Australia help offenders shadow their unlawful past from the

jury

when giving their final verdict. In my opinion,

this

is an unbiased method and should be changed.

Therefore

I agree with the lawyer’s suggestion to amend

this

point so that the

jury

can give a balanced verdict.

First

of all, if an offender has done a minor offence, normally the charges are dropped. But if the offence is life-threatening or disturbs peace it should be dealt with severely.

For instance

, a criminal can commit a

crime

, which is inferior to the

crime

he/she is about to commit

next

. While there is no method of predicting if the criminal will continue with

this

crime

spree the lawmakers should take measures to suppress

this

.

Furthermore

, there could be the valuable reason of doubt as to predicting whether a lawbreaker would commit the same

crime

or any other more than once, which is why the

jury

should consider giving thought to the criminals past wrongdoings to make the right decision. While there is a chance that a criminal will learn a lesson after being accused and punished there is a low possibility that it would happen in reality. In conclusion, a

jury

needs to know an offender past criminal records to make the right decision in a court, which

also

will have a positive impact on the reduction of

crime

rates in a country.