Under British and Australian laws a jury in a criminal case has no acccess to information about the defendant's past criminal record. This protects the person who is being acccused of the crime. Same lawyers have suggested that this practice should be changed and that a jury should be given all the past facts begfore they reach their decision abouthe case. Do you agree or disagree?

It is common in British and Australian laws that a trial should include a judge as a leader, a

defendant

with their lawyer, a prosecutor,

also

a

jury

to decide counts as guilty or not guilty. Interestingly, a

board

has no access to a

defendant

’s past record on criminal. Nowadays, lawyers are divided into groups

that

Correct pronoun usage

apply

show examples

some of them argue that the mentioned regulation is not relevant anymore. It is believed that a

jury

should have known about the past records to help strengthen their decision. In

this

essay, I would give my opinion as I disagree with that idea for several reasons. According to current research from the Harvard School of Psychology, people tend to judge each other and it often produces some bias. The research explains that we have our own way to perceive someone from the very

first

meeting, let alone if we know about their past history.

Thus

, past evidence contributes to creating our perception towards each other and interfere with any decision we are going to make regarding the new person we meet. By that interpretation, a tribunal can have a bias in deciding counts if they happen to know past facts about the

defendant

. Another statement coming from a published book written by a professor from Harvard Law School explains that a

board

should be independent. Not only does not a

board

associate with the

defendant

, but a

board

also

does not know about their past criminal transcript. Since the opinion from a

board

is important that it produces the ultimate decision in any trial, a

board

must maintain their independence. The failure of maintaining independence exposes the law's failure to protect the

defendant

to have a fair judgement from a

jury

. Overall, it can be concluded that human is naturally a judger and is possible in having bias when deciding. In

such

instances, a

jury

must maintain their independence by not knowing anything from the

defendant

’s past criminal record.