Making the right decision is the mission of the judges so that it puts a huge pressure on them. The question whether to show the jury the previous criminal actions of the defendant has raised a conflict between lawmakers. In Britain and Australia, the jury is not informed those previous cases, but in other countries, these kinds of practices are used to advocate for the culprit. My personal view is that this acquaintance should be considered more carefully.
Being provided past criminal record helps the judges to avoid the fraudulence from the lawyers and the defendant. When they know deeply about the character whom they have to give judgment, they would know whenever lawyers are cheating on them. In many cases, the defendant is a serial killer or a robber, understanding her or his past would help to create a background for her or his actions. Thus, the court could give out judgment quickly.
On the other hand, it would be counterproductive to let the juries know the defendant’s past if it sets prejudice in their mind. There is no doubt that they would feel unfriendly towards to accused which may affect decision-making process. Furthermore, in reality, many crimes recognized their misdeeds in the past, and they do regret about that, desire to devote to society in order to expiate their sin. Preconception of the judges could lead to under-evaluate the effort of person with criminal records. That is totally unfair to the accused person when the court was for a recent crime but not for crime committed in the past even when that person was punished reasonably.
In conclusion, let the court to access to information on the culprit should depend on the situation. It would an ideal choice to avoid time-consuming, but it also would have harmful effects on the juries’ view.
Making the right decision is the mission of the judges
so
that it puts a huge pressure on them.
The question whether
to
show
the
jury
the previous criminal actions of the
defendant
has raised a conflict between lawmakers. In Britain and Australia, the
jury
is not informed those previous cases,
but
in other countries, these kinds of practices are
used
to advocate for the culprit. My personal view is that this acquaintance should
be considered
more
carefully
.
Being provided
past
criminal record
helps
the judges to avoid the fraudulence from the lawyers and the
defendant
. When they know
deeply
about the character whom they
have to
give judgment, they would know whenever lawyers are cheating on them. In
many
cases, the
defendant
is a serial killer or a robber, understanding her or his
past
would
help
to create a background for her or his actions.
Thus
, the court could give out judgment
quickly
.
On the other hand
, it would be counterproductive to
let
the
juries
know the
defendant’s
past
if it sets prejudice in their mind. There is no doubt that they would feel
unfriendly
towards to accused which may affect decision-making process.
Furthermore
, in reality,
many
crimes recognized their misdeeds in the
past
, and they do regret about that, desire to devote to society in order to expiate their sin. Preconception of the judges could lead to under-evaluate the effort of person with criminal records.
That is
totally
unfair to the accused person when the court was for a recent crime
but
not for crime committed in the
past
even when that person
was punished
reasonably
.
In conclusion
,
let
the court to access to information on the culprit should depend on the situation. It would an ideal choice to avoid time-consuming,
but
it
also
would have harmful effects on the
juries’
view.