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.

The judges in The Britain and Australia have no track of the culprit's previous criminal activities. It is thought that this lack of access to the perpetrator's criminal data as a savior for the culprit. A proportion of lawyers is of the view that such a practice should be abolished, and before reaching any verdict, judges should look in to the past criminal activity data of the person facing the trial. Even though a crime is always liable to punishment, I am totally supportive of the idea that the panel must keep in view the culprit's past activities, and this discussion will elaborate my viewpoint. The jurisdiction law in the United Kingdom and Australia denies the judges all the access to the person's past criminal activity record. In my view, one does not simply commit a heinous act in a whim. A criminal act, be it minor or a major activity, is always a deliberate attempt. A hard pill to swallow, most of the criminals facing trials are regular law-breakers. One can not simply just pretend that the person woke up on the wrong side of bed and ended up doing an illegal act out. For example, last week as I was going through the daily newspaper, I read about a young guy who was caught sexually assaulting a young lady red handed. The trial in his case not only did investigate the current crime, the judges also went through his past criminal record; as it turned out, there previously had been many cases of sexual harassment and assaults reported against him, but he was never punished due to lack of evidence. Reviewing the past criminal record of a person not only establishes the evidence, it also reinstates his position as a culprit. Second, the record of one's previous unlawful activities can help the jury set a punishment accordingly. One who's trial is supported by a series of illegal activities in the past should be penalized accordingly. This, not only sets an example of a crystal clear justice, it also acts as a message to any one who is at the verge of doing an unlawful act. For example, the same perpetrator I talked about in the previous paragraph; he was brought castrated chemically. This clearly sent out message to anyone, who in their remotest of notions, were thinking of sexually assaulting another person. The past criminal record thus helps establish a criterion for punishment. While the laws can be contradictory, I am of the view that the judges should always keep in view the past criminal activity data of the person facing the trial, as many of them are regular offenders. This also establishes how severe a punishment should the criminal be subjected to.