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 other to reach an unbiased judgement and ensure the protection of a

defendant

, British and Australian laws restrict a

jury

's access to the accused's

records

in a criminal

case

.

However

, several lawyers are proposing an amendment to

this

law so that a

jury

has rights to the

defendants

past criminal

records

. In my opinion, I agree with the proposal, a

jury

should be able to review a

defendant

's

records

before meting out their judgement.

To begin

with, concerning the argument about a biased judgement,

this

may be possible if the

jury

is an individual alone or if it comprises of only a particular gender, age group, race or religion.

This

however

is not the

case

as a standard

jury

is diverse, with at least 10 or 12 qualified jurors of both genders and more than one age group who are required by the law to put aside their racial or religious differences during a trial.

Therefore

, it is unlikely that all members of the

jury

will become biased after viewing the

defendant

's

records

, or that the

jury

will give a verdict based on the bias of 2 or 3 jurors.

Furthermore

, I believe that for the appropriate verdict to be given, the nature of the offence

in addition

to whether or not the offender is a

first

-timer or a repeat offender should be taken into consideration. Since the

case

is a criminal

case

, it is likely that the crime in question may have caused death or harm to a

third

party, damage to property or the state and would require a heavy

punishment

.

However

, if the

defendant

is a

first

-timer, the

punishment

may be relatively lighter (all things being equal) than what a repeat offender will receive, and the

jury

needs to have

this

information in other to give the

punishment

of deserving weight.

For instance

, it will be inadequate and a bit unfair to ask a repeat shoplifter to simply pay a fine (which is more appropriate for a

first

-timer) when they deserve jail time. But

this

may be the

case

if the

jury

is kept in the dark with regards to the record.

Also

, looking through a

defendant

's record may bring to light certain things relating to the current

case

that

otherwise

may have been overlooked.

For instance

, after analyzing the

defendants

criminal record, it may become evident that they require some psychological or psychiatric intervention, based on the nature and pattern of the previous and current crimes. With

this

information, the verdict can be tailored to deliver not just judicatory

punishment

but

also

a solution to their mental health illness in form of rehabilitation, counselling or where necessary placed on appropriate medication. In conclusion, even though there may be concerns about a

jury

dishing out biased verdicts to

defendants

after going through their

records

, revealing these

records

indeed has more advantages as it makes room for not just the most appropriate weighted punishments, as in the

case

of repeat offenders, as well as factoring in other forms of help and rehabilitation for

defendants

who may need it.