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? Give reasons for your answer.

There is a debate among civilians regarding the

jury

getting authorisation to go through the defendant's past criminal past. Many give different opinions from various perspectives as some support the statements and some disagree. There are opinions stating that the action can lead to an invasion of the accused's privacy and having no information on past records can help the

jury

to make an unbiased decision.

Firstly

, giving authorisation to the

jury

to access to culprit's past is an invasion of an individual's privacy. Even if, the defendant was being questioned in the law court, giving accessibility to a

jury

that consists of sworn people can increase the chances of the data being leaked to the public. Jurors can accidentally bring up the case and the accused's information outside the law court

such

as the accused's past history and personal data,

for instance

.

Hence

,

this

can cause the culprit unable to continue a normal life after they redeem themselves.

Furthermore

, having no clue about a criminal's past record can help the bureau make unbiased verdicts. It is important to note that, jurors need to make a verdict upon the offender's guilty based only on the evidence that has been presented in the law court without being tied by the accused's past mistakes.

For example

, the bureau was able to the defendant's consequences and emotions as they were unaware of the culprit's criminal past.

Hence

,

this

gives chance to offender to prove their innocence during the hearing. In conclusion, the accessibility of the board to criminal records can lead to privacy invasion and unknowing the history can help the bureau to make unbiased decisions. In my opinion, I disagree with the fact that the

jury

should get all the past history of the case.