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?

The discussion on hand is about past records of a criminal being available to the jury or not. I disagree with the current law of protecting the criminal. In my opinion humans are primordial by nature and a lot is said about them from there line of ancestry and previous behaviors patterns which some studies say that sometimes is part of their DNA. To be able to fully justify the verdict on a case, jury needs to confirm if the criminal is committing crimes out of habit. The said technique may able to bring forth a behavior pattern in case of one and justice be provided according to the criminal history. It could be possible that the criminal needs mental help more than being put in a correction facility or worse. I understand that the judgement could be colored on basis of the history of the person but that brings me to question my faith in the jurors which I do not want to do. No citizen should have to question the integrity of their judicial system. I would rather believe in their objectivity and sense of justice to provide a judgement to the criminal as necessary or required. Think of this in this way, when we buy a product sometimes we are so brand specific because we know that the brand ensures a certain quality level and has been around in the market for a long time. So, we know that what we are putting are money on is sound. hence the idea that the criminal's past record being known is like knowing how long and true this person has been in the past and if the person requires something more than just being let go in the society once again, prison or some other facility to help the cause of this person.