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?

The criminal

record

of the accused in Britain or Australia is secured.

Due to

certain important data coming from an existing

record

of the accused, some legal experts are pressing for the

jury

to have access to the particular data before making a decision.

Therefore

, I strongly agree because of several considerations in which a person’s criminal history can be helpful during the sentencing phase and yet, it

also

affects the judgment of a

jury

.

Firstly

, getting access to a defendant’s past criminal

record

can be highly relevant for juries to have broadened view of a defendant to consider whether he is guilty or not.

For example

, there will be evidence for a defendant who has previously been convicted of a murder where he tied a victim hastily, and it is related to the current case when the victim was

also

tied in the same way.

Then

,

this

past information aids the

jury

to deliver their judgment.

Thus

, with the help of past facts, it could open more direction in solving cases, especially cases where they get stuck on.

In contrast

, hiding the defendant’s prior data can prevent juries from being unduly swayed by it

hence

they will focus more on the evidence relating to the present case. The reason is that some records cannot be proof for defendants committed whatever crime they are now accused of.

Therefore

,

this

will make many more innocent people safe from being wrongfully convicted.

To conclude

, I agree with a

jury

should brief on the past criminal

record

of the defendant but only in some cases, and in terms of fairness, a

jury

should not get the records.