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?

these days you see a disagreement between the laws in UK and AUS. so some of them think that helpful for the person who presented, while others believe that has big damage for them.

this

essay will discuss both sides and will draw my conclusion. On one hand,

to begin

with, showing all information about the criminal

record

for laws on both sides that will become a big move for the jury, and all sides can have a whole pitcher.

for example

, when the

represent

Replace the word

representative

show examples

has a huge

record

of crime the law in considering may

collet

Correct your spelling

collect

show examples

a variety of divans. so, that's why some think that we should share a

record

.

on the other hand

, there is no denying the fact that the main cause of keeping the past for criminal privet would be more helpful for him .to illustrate, no one can disagree with a big impact of the

record

in a weak situation for a low in court if everyone knows about how the criminal is bad.

hence

the belief that the law must save all secrets of whom represent.

in addition

.

this

law looks like a big slide of lawyers they are used to always.

therefore

can win. for an instance, they receive money, reputation, and thanks.

this

proves clearly that a purpose for doing that. in conclusion, after a careful analysis of both points of view, l believe that from a work professional let hiding the fact and publishing that will lead to take a fair judgment against the criminal