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.

Interestingly, It's an important subject to mention that till now British and Australian laws has no access to information about the defendant's past criminal record thinking that it can protect the person who's being accused of the crime, Whereas another lawyers have a suggestion that we might change this practice, and It's neccessasiry for the jury to be having a full awarness of the past records for this person. In my opinion, I would like to say that a criminal history could help judges for taking the right decision in any case, Perhaps we can find a lot of evidence which is related to the current crime, A lot of criminals using their same way in occuring their crimes, In Addition to that, we might find a relative equipments wich could be familier to the criminal. Following the criminals history could lead us to link all the criminal lines, For example, I remember an accident had happened 3 years ago in my city, especially my town, A family of four members have been killed at their house in the night, They have been slaugher with a very sharp Knife, The police kept searching for the finding the Killer for almost 2 years without finding any evidence which could help to recognize who's the killer, But when they started to track the criminall history of the neighbours, They found that there's a 22th guy who where owning the same knife which had been used by him before in killing a neighbours dog.