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.

According to the British and Australian legislation a jury is not allowed to acquire any previous information about the defendant's criminal past. While this measure has been taken in order to avoid any unjust trial, several attorneys would welcome a law change, so that juries would be promptly informed about the defendant's criminal record. In my opinion, the British and the Australian law should not be changed because they guarantee a fair trial. Firstly, one could in fact argue that a person who committed a crime in the past is undoubtly dishonest and might follow a pattern of unlawful and incivil acts, such as robbery or murder, and therefore be a fellon forever. In my view, human beings are not perfect and may make mistakes, however they also have an adaptive nature and learn from the past and wrongdoing. Furthermore, I believe that the current legislation is in place also to protects the accusant. It is just as well in his interest that law must guarantee a fair trail. In case the jury would condemn a person based on his past fellonies, they may misjudge the case and possibly incriminate the wrong person. For instance, if a person was involved in a car accident in the past and he had been judged guilty, if a second car accident happened, chances are that a jury might consider him again culpable. In conclusion, I am convinced that the current legislation and trial procedure is fair and aim to ensure that both parties are treated correctly and that the trial is just.