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?

People have different opinions that a

jury

should receive a

defendant

’s past criminal record before they make their decision about the

case

. In my view, I disagree with

this

viewpoint, I will discuss my views in

this

essay.

Firstly

, the background details of the

defendant

would impact the

jury

's judgment. A person who stole a bread should not be charged as a serious criminal

due to

his past mistake,

instead

, the

jury

should make decisions based on

this

case

individually, because the previous crimes have been punished. Meanwhile, all crimes have particular laws, the

jury

should make a decision

according to

the law, and any other things should not play a role in influencing judgment.

Secondly

, giving the

jury

past criminal records is a violation of Human Rights and Privacy. The

defendant

has not been accused as guilty by the judge,

thus

the

defendant

has the right protected by law.

Therefore

, the

jury

has no right to get the background of the accused,

otherwise

, the conclusion made by the

jury

could be seen as an injustice, and the judgment should not take effect. In conclusion, the

jury

should make decisions

case

by

case

, not influenced by previous crime background.

Besides

, following the law that protects the

defendant

, be careful not to violate human rights. Based on these reasons, I believe the

jury

should not get the previous information.