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?

Law juries in the United Kingdom and Australia can not be permitted to approach the previous criminal history of accused people.

However

, some legal professionals call for a change in

this

process. They expressed their opinion that it is necessary to be disclosed

for

Change preposition

to

show examples

the judges before making

any

Correct your spelling

an

show examples

informed decision. In my opinion, I

also

agree with the given suggestion. In

the

Change preposition

In the

show examples

following paragraphs, I shall explain my point of view in detail. Primarily, people in committees are appointed as judges in court to make a fair outcome and pass judgment based on presented evidence.

Nonetheless

, presuming that the past fact is unknown, judgment would be hampered and unjust

due to

the lack of the suspect’s priors.

Consequently

, defendants have no hesitation to lie that they will not perform repetitive acts.

Also

, they will get the liberty to commit that crime again without any recollection.

Additionally

, knowing the accused people’s whole character including both old and new data

,

Remove the comma

apply

show examples

might be an important missing piece in a puzzle.

For instance

, there was a perpetrator who confessed to the police about his racist

behavior

Change the spelling

behaviour

show examples

.  

Then

, a few months later, he was suspected of murdering the victim. Beyond that, the committee has an easier connection among the dots. Obviously,  any investigation

relevant

Change preposition

of relevant

show examples

information of each individual is crucial to unearth the truth.

On the other hand

, it is argued that the British and Australian governments enacted

this

law to preclude the likelihood of unfair and negative edge for a certain person who was involved with a crime but in fact, he/she is not.

For example

, if a person coincidentally did a minor

offense

Change the spelling

offence

show examples

at the moment, but he was hastily condemned simply owing to his past wrongdoings. In

this

scenario, whether the jury made an inaccurate decision would result in the punishment of the innocent, based solely on those period records. In conclusion, laws that provide juries no access to the criminal’s past events should be altered.

Otherwise

, adjudicators need to consider thoughtfully to make a judicious decision in the trial to avoid wrong goings risking the lives of people who do not commit any crime.