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.

In most of the criminal cases, the trials are practiced in front of the jurors for a better judgement. This law is followed by both the British and Australian government; however, jurors possess no access to a defendant's past criminal facts. Onthe contrary few lawyers believe that the jurors should be provided with the adequate information, so they could pass a verdict judgement. Although, past events of a criminal is important to run a trail, in my opinion, I also presume that public people having access to such sensitive information might violates an individual's life. It is a universal fact that based on past events an individual can be judged better. Similarly, jurors learning the defendant's past criminal record aids them in passing a non-biased judgement. Though, only the present mistakes of a convict is brought to light; learning their past helps the jurors to understand a law-breaker's character, attitude, personality, and mental stability. Therefore, a thorough study assists a jury to understand their psychological state of a criminal's mind, and would be able to identify whether the person is a continuous offender or not. For instance, consider a thieving woman murdering her husband as part of self-defense; this type of case requires analyzing past criminal records of both the victim and the offender. On the other hand, jurors are the panel of common people selected randomly. Hence, providing access to past details of a defendant might lead to certain problems such as; lack of confidential when it is a high-profile criminal case, lose of privacy for the defendant, chances of spreading rumors and so on. Also, jurors are nominated for a present day trail; hence, knowledge of past events might hinder their judgement. To illustrate consider the previous example, a jury may believe that the woman committed the crime owing to the fact that of her reputation as a robber. To conclude, in my opinion, when jurors are summoned for a criminal case authorities should decide how much of a defendant's past details can be shared with the jurors for a non-partial, honest judgement.