In some parts of the world, namely the USA, Britain and Australia, a person who is accused of a crime is judged in front of a jury of his peers. Unlike the American system in which, the defendant's criminal record is brought forth as imperative information that the jury needs to consider, in Britain and Australia those records remained sealed. While this has been the case for many years, some lawyers argue that the conventional system has to change. In order to come to a decision regarding this controversial subject, we must ask ourselves whether a person's past influence his future endeavours. In my humble opinion, the lawyers are correct and this current practice should be reformed.
People who support the current paradigm state that by bringing criminal records forward the suspect will not receive a fair trial as his past will influence the conclusion of the jury. Moreover, some can argue that it is wrong to treat two people who are accused of the same crime differently just because they have different criminal records as our past cannot predict our future and by doing so we render the prospect of rehabilitation irrelevant.
On the other hand, it seems to me that criminal records are part of the process of the trial as they are an evidence of the accused tendency toward criminal behaviour. Statistically speaking, it is highly probable that a person with a rich criminal record will act on his impulses and commit crime again. Imagine being a jury in a murder trial, wouldn’t you want to know everything about the defendant?
I think that the recent documentary named "the jinx" can shed some light on this issue. It tells the story of a rich man who was the prime suspect in three murder trials but was never convicted. The movie reveals new facts about the case and shows that he actually was the killer of all three. I believe that this story goes a long way to show how important it is to see the big picture and come to an informed decision based on every bit of information available.
In conclusion, I believe that a jury in a criminal case should receive every piece of information needed in order to facilitate their decision. I reckon that a defendant's criminal record should be considered an evidence for the trial and therefore, made available to the jury.
In
some
parts of the world,
namely
the USA, Britain and Australia, a person
who
is accused
of a crime
is judged
in front of a
jury
of his peers. Unlike the American system in which, the defendant's
criminal
record
is brought
forth as imperative information that the
jury
needs to consider, in Britain and Australia those
records
remained sealed. While this has been the case for
many
years,
some
lawyers argue that the conventional system
has to
change
. In order to
come
to a decision regarding this controversial subject, we
must
ask ourselves whether a person's past influence his future
endeavours
. In my humble opinion, the lawyers are correct and this
current
practice should
be reformed
.
People
who
support the
current
paradigm state that by bringing
criminal
records
forward the suspect will not receive a
fair
trial
as his past will influence the conclusion of the
jury
.
Moreover
,
some
can argue that it is
wrong
to treat two
people
who
are accused
of the same crime
differently
just
because
they have
different
criminal
records
as our past cannot predict our future and by doing
so
we render the prospect of rehabilitation irrelevant.
On the other hand
, it seems to me that
criminal
records
are part of the process of the
trial
as they are an evidence of the accused tendency toward
criminal
behaviour
.
Statistically
speaking, it is
highly
probable that a person with a rich
criminal
record
will act on his impulses and commit crime again. Imagine being a
jury
in a murder
trial
, wouldn’t you want to know everything about the defendant?
I
think
that the recent documentary named
"
the jinx
"
can shed
some
light on this issue. It
tells
the story of a rich
man
who
was the prime suspect in three murder
trials
but
was never convicted. The movie reveals new facts about the case and
shows
that he actually was the killer of all three. I believe that this story goes a long way to
show
how
important
it is to
see
the
big
picture and
come
to an informed decision based on every bit of information available.
In conclusion
, I believe that a
jury
in a
criminal
case should receive every piece of information needed in order to facilitate their decision. I reckon that a defendant's
criminal
record
should
be considered
an evidence for the
trial
and
therefore
, made available to the
jury
.