Prompt: 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 and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience

When it comes to judging, there is a debate on whether or not a jury should be aware of the accused's previous criminal file. According to some, hiding previous information protects who is about to be judged, while others believe that a jury should receive all information about the criminal. This essay will present arguments to explain why I support the latter view. Ċ To begin with, I believe a jury should know everything about the person that will be sentenced. This is because it is important to consider the past criminal record to give a fair sentence. For example, if criminals have done the same crime over and over again, they should receive a higher penalty. However, if it is the first time committing a crime, it is fair to give a lighter sentence. Ċ Furthermore, I believe it is not possible to take an adequate decision without all information about the criminal. In other words, without the preceding record, the judgement will be wrong. In my opinion, a jury should consider not only the crime someone has done but also the behaviour of this person. In addition, providing previous information to a jury is better both for the jury and the defendant because according to the past actions, defendants could receive a lighter sentence. Ċ To sum up, I believe it is necessary to provide all information to a jury about the defendant's past criminal record.