 #1 (permalink) Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:00 am IELTS essay: Under British and Australian laws a jury in a criminal case has... |
|
|
I know it's too much to ask to check an essay. But I really need to hear you guys thoughts to know how well I convey my idea to readers and how coherent I am. All the inputs would be highly appreciated.
| Quote: |
Under British and Australian laws a jury in a criminal case has no access to information about the defendants' 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?
In any judicial system, juries need to be provided with relevant information with respect to the case that they are asked to pass judgment. To reach a fair verdict in the end, it is essential to provide them as much information as there are available so that the chances of making wrong decision would be reduced. That being said, among those information, I personally believe that criminal record of defendants should be off-limits.
One of my biggest concern on making past criminal record available to juries is that it would likely cloud their sound judgment in a way that they would make the decision with prejudice which stems from what the defendant did in the past. Considering how our society discriminate against those ex-convicts, subconsciously, juries would form preconceive notion, that this person is guilty, base on the past misdeed alone although he/she may not be responsible for it.
You may point out those criminals such as serial killers, robbers and drug dealers who commit crime again and again. But, not all ex-convicts fall into this category. Some do regret for what they did and desire to contribute to society to repay their misdeed. They are trying their best to regain society trust. Such people shouldn’t be prone to prejudice and, ultimately wrongful conviction if they ever happen to be at wrong place at wrong time.
Furthermore, it is best to keep juries in the dark in that respect to guard innocent defendants from inconsiderate prosecutors who only wants to win the case just to get the fame. Dishonest person like this would do anything, that is to say to insinuate that the defendant would commit the crime again, at the expense of innocent person life to get what they want. Couple of years ago, a prosecutor from my country was sentenced to jail for asking sexual favor from the defendant’s sister by convincing her that he could talked his way into convicting her brother.
So, in conclusion, I wholeheartedly disagree that this law should be amended. We need to keep this law as it is to protect innocent people from being wrongfully convicted. There may be some people who commit crime over and over again but we need to keep in mind that not all ex-convicts are alike and, for that matter, we shouldn’t put the good ones lives into jeopardy. |
|
|
 Bulone
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 16 May 2009
Posts: 111
|
