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?

British and Australian jurisprudence gives the

jury

no opportunity to get to know the data on the defendant’s previous criminal archive and

this

helps the

person

who is being blamed. Several lawyers offered to stop practising

this

phenomenon and provide the

jury

with all the former information before they would solve the case. I totally agree with

this

statement as it can be of benefit to both the defendant and the

jury

. On the one hand, giving

such

information to the

jury

members aids them to stay neutral and make unbiased judgments on the present and previous data. And

this

somehow is on the side of a defendant. What if he or she has not done the crime? The present law can result in new crimes as the

person

who is intended to make a crime can be assured that the law will pass by its previous crimes.

On the other hand

,

this

can generate some difficulties for both the accuser and the

jury

.

Moreover

, in all situations, the

jury

would judge based on the present issue, not being well acquainted with the

person

. It is believed, that history tends to repeat itself. So, there is a little probability that one can change oneself and regret it after a while. And the time shows that they mostly do not alter their approach and go on with their behaviour. So, being acquainted with the

person

’s all characteristic traits and

person

's past would give the

jury

a chance to make a better decision based on many facts and factors.

Consequently

, I agree with the lawyers who want to change the British and Australian laws connected to

this

issue.