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 your own opinion and relevant examples.

It has been suggested that juries should have access to a defendant’s past criminal record when making decisions 1under British and Australian lawunder the British and Australian laws. However, I strongly disagree with this proposal, as it fundamentally undermines the principle of a fair and impartial trial.

Firstly, allowing juries to examine previous convictions 2could leadcould inevitably lead to 3prejudice and biasprejudice and biased judgment. Jurors, being ordinary individuals rather than legal professionals, may form preconceived notions about the defendant’s character. As a result, they 4might assumemight be inclined to assume guilt based on past behaviour rather than evaluating the present case objectively. This directly contradicts the fundamental legal doctrine that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. For instance, an individual who committed a minor offence years ago, such as petty theft, might be 5judged more harshlyunfairly judged more harshly in an unrelated case like a financial dispute, even if the evidence is weak.

Secondly, the current legal framework ensures that verdicts are reached 6solely onsolely on the basis of relevant and admissible evidence. This promotes objectivity and safeguards the judicial process from 7emotional reactions or irrational assumptionsemotional or irrational influences. If jurors were 8given access to prior criminal recordsexposed to prior criminal records, 9thisit could divert their attention from the facts of the case and lead to decisions driven by stigma rather than proof. In complex cases, this could significantly increase the risk of wrongful convictions.

Admittedly, some proponents argue that access to such information 10provides a fuller understanding of the defendant’s backgroundprovides a more comprehensive understanding of the defendant. However, this perceived advantage is outweighed by the potential for injustice, as it compromises neutrality and fairness.

In conclusion, granting juries access to a defendant’s past criminal record poses a serious threat to the integrity of the justice system. Therefore, it is essential to maintain the current practice to ensure that every individual receives a fair and unbiased trial.