Some countries' laws do not give the jury the past crimes of the defendant. Some lawyers suggest otherwise. Do you agree or disagree?

In most countries around the globe, the jury in a criminal case is availed with the past criminal records' data of the defendant. However, it is not the same in the British and Australian laws. Lawyers advice that, the jury should be having the access to all the facts before the decision, on the case, is made. I agree with the view of lawyers. Firstly, in scenarios where the jury members are blinded to the information regarding the previous crimes committed, if any, they would fail to make the right decision. For instance, if a person, who was accused of theft in the past, is now caught in a similar robbery case, with unclear evidence, the judge might annul the case without investigating further, since he is not aware of the crime committed earlier. Thus letting go of a possible thief. It is of utmost importance, for the judge to know the pervious crimes of the accused. It helps in knowing the person and his perception, leading to making a better judgement. In a similar situation and stated previously, if the decision is to be made with complete awareness of the crime history, then the jury might order for more investigation, when there is no clear evidence against the person. Later pass the judgement based on the outcome. To conclude, I would opine that the judgement needs to be made with full knowledge of the past of the accused, without which there are chances of either letting loose of a criminal or punishing an innocent.