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 British countries, there has been a heated argument in the law enforcement community regarding whether the criminal record of the accusee should be disclosed. In my perspective, I suggest that past facts can facilitate the process, and I will discuss the main reasons supporting my arguments. First, Intent is one of the most crucial factors to consider one's punishment. An innocent person sure can accidentally perform an identity theft through the forgetfulness of someone who leaves the account logged in. But, if we were to look into the data, the intention of one's misdemeanor could be unveiled. We might see past records of credential-stealing, which might attribute to the current attempt. Backtracking the line, we could find others who are involved, which sometimes is lying around in the background of the criminal per se. In Thailand, where the laws differ from those of the British, the past records once presented a criminal's record. It was found that he has been working for a document forgery company for several times, leading to an investigation of the company, and the arrest of the owner in months later. This confirms how useful revealing the crime logs can be to the jury. In conclusion, the documentation of one's felony could contribute to the investigation and interrogation. Looking at them, the jury can come up with a more logical consideration regarding the judgment, such as sentence duration, or the amount of fine. I hereby reassert that revealing past crime records should be put into practice in the UK and Australia.