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 acused of the crime
Some lawyers have suggested that this practice should be changed and that a jury should be given all the pastfacts before they reach their decision about the case.
Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer
Over the years mankind has been moulding its distinctive culture, moral principles and laws. And nowadays there is a world of difference between the ways people of different countries live, the rules and laws they obey. In particular, the criminal code is usually different in different countries. For instance, unlike other countries’ laws, under British and Australian laws a jury in criminal case has no access to information about the defendant’s past records, as it protects the person being on trial for committing a crime.
Nevertheless, this practice is an issue which frequently generates a great deal of heated debate, with supporters maintaining that it is essential for the jury to reach an impartial verdict, whilst opponents claim that the jury should be given all the facts before reaching their decision about the case.
In the first place, passing sentence to a criminal is a very responsible act. Consequently, the jury should be aware of many facts of the defendant’s life. Furthermore, if the accused is a hardened criminal, he or she should be punished more severely.
Apart from this, according to Chezarer Lombrozo, there are people predisposed to transgression of the law owing to certain biological features. Such people should not be only fined for committing a crime or maybe sentences to several years in prison. On the contrary, they should be treated in special medical institutions. And if the jury is not aware of this fact, the criminal will still constitute a menace to innocent civilians before he or she is caught once more.
For the above-mentioned reasons, therefore, I reckon that the jury should be given all information about the defendant’s criminal record to rule out the possibility of reaching a wrong decision about the case. Of course, the defendants must be protected from being biassedly judged, but it is more important for the jury to be honest and wise enough to judge fairly while being informed of conviction records of the accused.
Nevertheless, this practice is an issue which frequently generates a great deal of heated debate, with supporters maintaining that it is essential for the jury to reach an impartial verdict, whilst opponents claim that the jury should be given all the facts before reaching their decision about the case.
In the first place, passing sentence to a criminal is a very responsible act. Consequently, the jury should be aware of many facts of the defendant’s life. Furthermore, if the accused is a hardened criminal, he or she should be punished more severely.
Apart from this, according to Chezarer Lombrozo, there are people predisposed to transgression of the law owing to certain biological features. Such people should not be only fined for committing a crime or maybe sentences to several years in prison. On the contrary, they should be treated in special medical institutions. And if the jury is not aware of this fact, the criminal will still constitute a menace to innocent civilians before he or she is caught once more.
For the above-mentioned reasons, therefore, I reckon that the jury should be given all information about the defendant’s criminal record to rule out the possibility of reaching a wrong decision about the case. Of course, the defendants must be protected from being biassedly judged, but it is more important for the jury to be honest and wise enough to judge fairly while being informed of conviction records of the accused.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét